Well, until evolutionists can give a rational explaination for the epistomology of morality and abstract laws such as logic, then the science of evolution might as well be catogorized under a theory just like Intelligent Desing or SETI.
And not only that, how can a chance Universe explain the principle of induction?
Not Marlon Brando, the mafia. It's the cub scouts against the mafia. Now are you going to tell me that the mafia is too nice of a label for the anti-evolutionists?
If there's one thing America hates, it's a phony. The worst thing "evolutionists" can do is try to be something they're not. Keep your labcoats on, Science; the pencils behind your ear, and your hair up in a bun.
Science is completely out of touch with popular culture, and that's how popular culture likes it. That's what makes us trust science. The image of a guy shuttered away in an office stacked with half-graded, coffee-stained papers - he thinks One Night In Paris was a romantic comedy from the 30's. It's not a fair image, but it's a comfort to the rest of us that someone is trying to figure out the Big Important Questions while we're trying to figure out who's going to win American Idol.
As for the recent creationist excursion into pop culture, it's only fooling creationists. No one is looking at Expelled's movie poster and thinking, "Marlon Brando." They're thinking, "Pee-Wee Herman," maybe, and then they're thinking they'd rather watch Prom Night. I just don't see how making a walking icon of American boredom the face of the creationist movement can't backfire. Creationists are going to sell intelligent design with an old guy wearing school-shorts and long, black socks? Really?
"Well, until evolutionists can give a rational explaination for the epistomology of morality and abstract laws such as logic, then the science of evolution might as well be catogorized under a theory just like Intelligent Desing or SETI.
And not only that, how can a chance Universe explain the principle of induction?
Your thoughts please."
What on earth does those question have to do with evolution? Most people are inclined to say that the laws of logic and mathematics and the fact that induction hold are because that's the way reality works. It has nothing to do with evolution (although Hume himself attempted a naturalistic approach to why we use induction, actually, because he didn't think it was really justifiable). Lots of stuff about how we 'evolved' morality have been written, but as to the question about what is right and wrong, this is of course irrelevant. Those questions have nothing to do with evolution (not with religion either; heard of the Euthyphro contrast?)
At best, Steve, you're committing the standard naturalistic fallacy. But actually, it looks rather like you have no clue what evolution is about nor what it's subject matter is.
"Why induction holds in a chance universe?" ... Why shouldn't it? Are you misunderstanding the "ordered universe" response to the problem of induction? Well, few would take that line anyway; most common approaches would be Popperian (few of them anymore, I guess), Reichenbach-style pragmatist or through Bayesianism (by far the most promising one).
You might find your questions answered in Marc D. Hauser's Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, Frans de Waals's Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, or Matt Riddley's The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation (just for starters).
If you prefer to research online, start here - or just search for "altruism" on any reputable pro-evolution website.
"If there's one thing America hates, it's a phony."
Without suggesting "evolutionists" become phonies, I'll have to call BS on this. We worship phonies. I think I can mention three without stepping on any toes here - think Bush, Hilton, and Anderson.
"The worst thing "evolutionists" can do is try to be something they're not. Keep your labcoats on, Science; the pencils behind your ear, and your hair up in a bun.
Science is completely out of touch with popular culture, and that's how popular culture likes it."
They used to say that same thing about computer geeks; then "geeks" started making real money, and now the 733+ h@x0rz in a movie are just as likely to be a sex symbol of sorts as they are to be a horn-rimmed, pocket protected 90 pound weakling - and the same happens "IRL".
I think that the representatives of science can be anyone if they have an engaging enough story to tell. Problem is, most Americans don't give two squirts about evolution - or any other kind of science - until you brush up against their "religious sensibilities". Even when it impacts them DIRECTLY it's hard to get "average joes" interested in anything 'scientific'. And that's not elitism talking; it's frustration.
The only way to "win" the battle of reason against fundamentalism is to first win the battle of separation of church and state, and in doing so, win the battle in the classroom.
I keep reading all of these things about how the anti-evolutionists don't play fair, and that no one will stand up to them. It bugs me because it IS possible to counter the anti-evolution message effectively. One simply has to understand that culture and speak to them in their own language. When people use religion to counter scientific findings, we are right to force them to frame their argument in scientific terms. If we are going to counter their anti-evolution view (which they themselves frame in religious terms), we must be willing to frame our argument from within their world-view.
Given that, here is how to convince anti-evolutionists that evolution is true:
1. Find a spokesperson they can trust. Someone who can speak their language, treat them as intellectual peers, and gain their respect. If they do not trust the messenger, they will not trust the message. Preferably this should be someone who grew up in their culture and "converted" from creationism to evolution.
2. Be honest and fair, even when the other side isn't.
3. Do not treat evolution as part of the culture war. If you attack the creationist culture, you lose. Also don't attack conservative values.
4. Frame science as a study of God's creation. You don't have to say God exists, but if you try to use science to prove God doesn't exist, you lose. Use the emotional hook that science tells us of a world far more wondrous than we had imagined.
5. Clearly outline why creationism/intelligent design is bad theology. It compares to the Church clinging to an earth-centered universe because it challenged their theology.
6. Clearly explain the evidence behind evolution in broad terms, and how that evidence is no more speculative than the evidence that atoms exist or that lights in the night sky are really planets and suns.
7. Present evolution as a theological challenge. Not whether or not God exists, but rather "why would God use evolution to bring us into being?" What does evolution tell you about the nature of God? Challenge theologians to address that issue, and leave it to their authority to interpret the consequences. One can compare this to the Catholic Church and its adherence to the earth-centered view. The scientific "revelation" that the earth was NOT the center of the universe led to the theological "revelation" that the Church was not the singular authority on God's word. The protestant revolution owes its history in part to science. Likewise, the theological challenge of evolution will lead to a deeper understanding of God.
8. Make a movie/book combination. The movie is to create buzz and discussion, the book is to let them ponder the issue. The movie wins hearts, the book wins minds.
There's a lot more to this, but that is the overall process. And just to be clear, I am not advocating that we take the approach that science proves God or the Bible. But given that anti-evolutionists take God's existence as an axiomatic truth, an honest study of science can lead to a deeper understanding of what that truth is. Where that leads them theologically is up to them, not us.
Maybe I'm wrong, and feel free to tell me why, but I was raised in the anti-evolutionist world, and this type of approach works with individuals. I see no reason why it wouldn't work on the media level. It would at the very least generate controversy within the anti-evolutionist community, which is what you want. We want to get them talking and arguing about it amongst themselves.
The most important thing is that this would be simple to do. Randy, you could make a film like this. ScienceBlogs could create some buzz. The media would LOVE the kind of controversy this type of argument would stir.
So, why not do something like this instead of complaining about our own lack of effectiveness?
Thank you all for your comments. I will look into and research the data you asked me to look into. I wish that my university biology and philo profs were more "open-minded" like you all are here on the science blogs.
It's does seem that academia in America is suppressing freedom of learning because if one even dares to have an opposing viewpoint to the theory of evolution or the secular worldview, your immediately branded as an ignoramus. I'm just a student. Isn't it my job to ask such questions? And at times posit a belief in an intelligent being without persecution ( I use that term lightly). Isn't that what should be encouraged in the classroom? Shouldn't the professors encourage participation from their students?
Some students in my classes are afraid to ask such questions because those militant professors will eventually have the last say; The almighty red pen at Finals time.
As a student, yes it is your job to ask questions. As a professor, it is my job to challenge you to see the world in new ways. In a science class, this entails presenting you with a deeper understanding of the mechanics of the natural world. In a philosophy class this entails exposing you to various schools of thought, both secular and otherwise. You will not make it through college without some of your beliefs being challenged.
Although you may feel intimidated asking questions, most professors (myself included) encourage it, and few will grade you unfairly because of your personal beliefs. Sure, there is the occasional git of a professor who only wants you to regurgitate exactly what they tell you. I had one or two, and you probably will as well. But these are the exception, not the rule.
Keep in mind the red pen isn't so mighty. If you think you have been graded unfairly, you can always contest the outcome. As professors we have to be able to justify the grades we give, good and bad. You also have the power of the student evaluation. Clearly written concerns (not just "this professor sucks") or praises do have an impact on tenure and promotion. Not only that, most professors use student evaluations to improve their teaching. Most of us went into our respective fields because we truly love the subject. We would like nothing better than to give our students some of the understanding and excitement we have for our work.
I would point out that opposition to evolution and opposition to a secular world view are two entirely different things. True, there are some Christian denominations which take a literalist view incompatible with evolution, but evolution does not in any way preclude or confirm the existence of a Creator or a Higher Power. Additionally, if evolution were to be scientifically invalidated this would not prove the existence of a designer. It would simply show the need for a broader predictive model. Intelligent design, not being predictive (among other things) will never be a replacement model. But for now, all scientific evidence indicates that if God created the universe, evolution is how He brought forth the diversity of life we see around us.
Finally, I would urge you to have a little sympathy for your biology professors. If every time I taught introductory physics half a dozen students started asking why we believe planets move in ellipses when everyone knows that planets move in perfect circles, or argued that the failure of Newtonian gravity to explain dark matter or the precession of Mercury means intelligent falling is the only explanation, I'm pretty sure my patience would wear a bit thin.
Keep asking questions, but also listen to the answers.
Make a movie/book combination. The movie is to create buzz and discussion, the book is to let them ponder the issue. The movie wins hearts, the book wins minds o yes
Glad to see the good looking blogger back on SB.
So now you're going to compare Ben Stein to Marlon Brando, and a bad creationist propaganda movie to a cinema classic?
This is getting ridiculous.
Well, until evolutionists can give a rational explaination for the epistomology of morality and abstract laws such as logic, then the science of evolution might as well be catogorized under a theory just like Intelligent Desing or SETI.
And not only that, how can a chance Universe explain the principle of induction?
Your thoughts please.
Steve
http://thatsagreatquestion.blogspot.com
Not Marlon Brando, the mafia. It's the cub scouts against the mafia. Now are you going to tell me that the mafia is too nice of a label for the anti-evolutionists?
If there's one thing America hates, it's a phony. The worst thing "evolutionists" can do is try to be something they're not. Keep your labcoats on, Science; the pencils behind your ear, and your hair up in a bun.
Science is completely out of touch with popular culture, and that's how popular culture likes it. That's what makes us trust science. The image of a guy shuttered away in an office stacked with half-graded, coffee-stained papers - he thinks One Night In Paris was a romantic comedy from the 30's. It's not a fair image, but it's a comfort to the rest of us that someone is trying to figure out the Big Important Questions while we're trying to figure out who's going to win American Idol.
As for the recent creationist excursion into pop culture, it's only fooling creationists. No one is looking at Expelled's movie poster and thinking, "Marlon Brando." They're thinking, "Pee-Wee Herman," maybe, and then they're thinking they'd rather watch Prom Night. I just don't see how making a walking icon of American boredom the face of the creationist movement can't backfire. Creationists are going to sell intelligent design with an old guy wearing school-shorts and long, black socks? Really?
If you guys are boy scouts, then be boy scouts.
"Well, until evolutionists can give a rational explaination for the epistomology of morality and abstract laws such as logic, then the science of evolution might as well be catogorized under a theory just like Intelligent Desing or SETI.
And not only that, how can a chance Universe explain the principle of induction?
Your thoughts please."
What on earth does those question have to do with evolution? Most people are inclined to say that the laws of logic and mathematics and the fact that induction hold are because that's the way reality works. It has nothing to do with evolution (although Hume himself attempted a naturalistic approach to why we use induction, actually, because he didn't think it was really justifiable). Lots of stuff about how we 'evolved' morality have been written, but as to the question about what is right and wrong, this is of course irrelevant. Those questions have nothing to do with evolution (not with religion either; heard of the Euthyphro contrast?)
At best, Steve, you're committing the standard naturalistic fallacy. But actually, it looks rather like you have no clue what evolution is about nor what it's subject matter is.
"Why induction holds in a chance universe?" ... Why shouldn't it? Are you misunderstanding the "ordered universe" response to the problem of induction? Well, few would take that line anyway; most common approaches would be Popperian (few of them anymore, I guess), Reichenbach-style pragmatist or through Bayesianism (by far the most promising one).
Too late, Randy. The creationist camp has already used the mafia label, only they apply it to "Big Science".
Steve -
You might find your questions answered in Marc D. Hauser's Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, Frans de Waals's Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, or Matt Riddley's The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation (just for starters).
If you prefer to research online, start here - or just search for "altruism" on any reputable pro-evolution website.
@Dave -
"If there's one thing America hates, it's a phony."
Without suggesting "evolutionists" become phonies, I'll have to call BS on this. We worship phonies. I think I can mention three without stepping on any toes here - think Bush, Hilton, and Anderson.
"The worst thing "evolutionists" can do is try to be something they're not. Keep your labcoats on, Science; the pencils behind your ear, and your hair up in a bun.
Science is completely out of touch with popular culture, and that's how popular culture likes it."
They used to say that same thing about computer geeks; then "geeks" started making real money, and now the 733+ h@x0rz in a movie are just as likely to be a sex symbol of sorts as they are to be a horn-rimmed, pocket protected 90 pound weakling - and the same happens "IRL".
I think that the representatives of science can be anyone if they have an engaging enough story to tell. Problem is, most Americans don't give two squirts about evolution - or any other kind of science - until you brush up against their "religious sensibilities". Even when it impacts them DIRECTLY it's hard to get "average joes" interested in anything 'scientific'. And that's not elitism talking; it's frustration.
The only way to "win" the battle of reason against fundamentalism is to first win the battle of separation of church and state, and in doing so, win the battle in the classroom.
I keep reading all of these things about how the anti-evolutionists don't play fair, and that no one will stand up to them. It bugs me because it IS possible to counter the anti-evolution message effectively. One simply has to understand that culture and speak to them in their own language. When people use religion to counter scientific findings, we are right to force them to frame their argument in scientific terms. If we are going to counter their anti-evolution view (which they themselves frame in religious terms), we must be willing to frame our argument from within their world-view.
Given that, here is how to convince anti-evolutionists that evolution is true:
1. Find a spokesperson they can trust. Someone who can speak their language, treat them as intellectual peers, and gain their respect. If they do not trust the messenger, they will not trust the message. Preferably this should be someone who grew up in their culture and "converted" from creationism to evolution.
2. Be honest and fair, even when the other side isn't.
3. Do not treat evolution as part of the culture war. If you attack the creationist culture, you lose. Also don't attack conservative values.
4. Frame science as a study of God's creation. You don't have to say God exists, but if you try to use science to prove God doesn't exist, you lose. Use the emotional hook that science tells us of a world far more wondrous than we had imagined.
5. Clearly outline why creationism/intelligent design is bad theology. It compares to the Church clinging to an earth-centered universe because it challenged their theology.
6. Clearly explain the evidence behind evolution in broad terms, and how that evidence is no more speculative than the evidence that atoms exist or that lights in the night sky are really planets and suns.
7. Present evolution as a theological challenge. Not whether or not God exists, but rather "why would God use evolution to bring us into being?" What does evolution tell you about the nature of God? Challenge theologians to address that issue, and leave it to their authority to interpret the consequences. One can compare this to the Catholic Church and its adherence to the earth-centered view. The scientific "revelation" that the earth was NOT the center of the universe led to the theological "revelation" that the Church was not the singular authority on God's word. The protestant revolution owes its history in part to science. Likewise, the theological challenge of evolution will lead to a deeper understanding of God.
8. Make a movie/book combination. The movie is to create buzz and discussion, the book is to let them ponder the issue. The movie wins hearts, the book wins minds.
There's a lot more to this, but that is the overall process. And just to be clear, I am not advocating that we take the approach that science proves God or the Bible. But given that anti-evolutionists take God's existence as an axiomatic truth, an honest study of science can lead to a deeper understanding of what that truth is. Where that leads them theologically is up to them, not us.
Maybe I'm wrong, and feel free to tell me why, but I was raised in the anti-evolutionist world, and this type of approach works with individuals. I see no reason why it wouldn't work on the media level. It would at the very least generate controversy within the anti-evolutionist community, which is what you want. We want to get them talking and arguing about it amongst themselves.
The most important thing is that this would be simple to do. Randy, you could make a film like this. ScienceBlogs could create some buzz. The media would LOVE the kind of controversy this type of argument would stir.
So, why not do something like this instead of complaining about our own lack of effectiveness?
Thank you all for your comments. I will look into and research the data you asked me to look into. I wish that my university biology and philo profs were more "open-minded" like you all are here on the science blogs.
It's does seem that academia in America is suppressing freedom of learning because if one even dares to have an opposing viewpoint to the theory of evolution or the secular worldview, your immediately branded as an ignoramus. I'm just a student. Isn't it my job to ask such questions? And at times posit a belief in an intelligent being without persecution ( I use that term lightly). Isn't that what should be encouraged in the classroom? Shouldn't the professors encourage participation from their students?
Some students in my classes are afraid to ask such questions because those militant professors will eventually have the last say; The almighty red pen at Finals time.
Thatsagreatquestion,
As a student, yes it is your job to ask questions. As a professor, it is my job to challenge you to see the world in new ways. In a science class, this entails presenting you with a deeper understanding of the mechanics of the natural world. In a philosophy class this entails exposing you to various schools of thought, both secular and otherwise. You will not make it through college without some of your beliefs being challenged.
Although you may feel intimidated asking questions, most professors (myself included) encourage it, and few will grade you unfairly because of your personal beliefs. Sure, there is the occasional git of a professor who only wants you to regurgitate exactly what they tell you. I had one or two, and you probably will as well. But these are the exception, not the rule.
Keep in mind the red pen isn't so mighty. If you think you have been graded unfairly, you can always contest the outcome. As professors we have to be able to justify the grades we give, good and bad. You also have the power of the student evaluation. Clearly written concerns (not just "this professor sucks") or praises do have an impact on tenure and promotion. Not only that, most professors use student evaluations to improve their teaching. Most of us went into our respective fields because we truly love the subject. We would like nothing better than to give our students some of the understanding and excitement we have for our work.
I would point out that opposition to evolution and opposition to a secular world view are two entirely different things. True, there are some Christian denominations which take a literalist view incompatible with evolution, but evolution does not in any way preclude or confirm the existence of a Creator or a Higher Power. Additionally, if evolution were to be scientifically invalidated this would not prove the existence of a designer. It would simply show the need for a broader predictive model. Intelligent design, not being predictive (among other things) will never be a replacement model. But for now, all scientific evidence indicates that if God created the universe, evolution is how He brought forth the diversity of life we see around us.
Finally, I would urge you to have a little sympathy for your biology professors. If every time I taught introductory physics half a dozen students started asking why we believe planets move in ellipses when everyone knows that planets move in perfect circles, or argued that the failure of Newtonian gravity to explain dark matter or the precession of Mercury means intelligent falling is the only explanation, I'm pretty sure my patience would wear a bit thin.
Keep asking questions, but also listen to the answers.
Make a movie/book combination. The movie is to create buzz and discussion, the book is to let them ponder the issue. The movie wins hearts, the book wins minds o yes