If you haven't seen Kirk Cameron's latest, Shakesville's got it here -- and it is a knee-slapper.
As someone with slightly more than a passing interest in evolutionary theory, and a tiny bit of experience in the trenches of the Science Wars, this kind of stuff can sometimes rile me up. One of my biggest concerns is that people like Cameron have been allowed to set the tone of the conflict -- indeed, they've made it into the conflict that it is. I'm not saying that the scientific establishment hasn't often been combatative and hostile to religion, but I think a lot of that is in response to a perceived threat (which of course, doesn't exonerate being an asshole).
In a strange way, though, I feel like Cameron is right about the threat evolution poses to religious belief. One of the most important lessons of evolutionary theory, for me, is that human beings are animals like any other. We are a part of life, not separate from it, not imbued with some divine spark. In this sense, evolutionary theory is inimical to some interpretations of some religions, which hold that we are Different. That, I think, is what some people are afraid of. They can, perhaps, accept that animals breed and change over time -- but draw the line when it comes to humanity, which is really missing the point entirely. To be fair, some evolutionary scientists have made this mistake in the past, too -- but for entirely different reasons.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I just stumbled upon your blog and was reading through your older posts. I just had to say something on this one though, even if I am a couple of weeks behind. :)
ReplyDeleteI too really only have a slight itnerest in the theory of evolution and yet can find myself getting really riled up on the topic. Mostly when people begin the whole "OMG people who don't believe in evolution are sooooo stuuuupid" (which I upfortunately find on most liberal blogs I read and even hear from my more liberal friends). It seems people forget evolution is just a THEORY, no matter how much the scientific community would just LOVE to drown out all creationists in their midst. Once you stop questioning things in science I feel it kind of defeats the purpose. Sometimes I think scientists need lessons like we social sciences people got in college. You research is never definitive and is ALWAYS biased. That counts for sciences like chemistry and biology too. And many times I feel people stick so hard to evolution simply because it is considered the opposite of religion. "I don't believe in god therefore I'm an evolutionist" kind of arguement.
I know you aren't making that arguement here, and that's cool. I honestly could care less what people believe in this regard. I can't make up my mind sometimes whether I'm more creationist or evolutionist or some mixture of both. It's not a religious arguement for me, I just don't feel there's enough evidence on either side for anyone to be calling people stupid for believing in one or the other. So I guess I just wanted to comment and say it is refreshing to see a post on evolution (and anti-evolution/creationist) folk that's not just a page long entry about how stupid those people who believe in some higher power making the world are. :)
Hi PMS Rhino,
ReplyDeleteI'm sympathetic to the experience of the smug atheist -- and I don't much like them in this capacity either. But I do have some comments on the specific "just a theory" bit.
The problem with arguing that evolution is "just a theory" is twofold. First, those arguing in such a manner usually mean something different than what most scientists mean when they use the word theory. The critics want the use of the word theory here to signify that evolution is uncertain and that it shouldn't be taken seriously. But, and this is the second problem, if we were to question every scientific theory in the same manner, we would find ourselves unable to reap many of the benefits of scientific research.
I don't deny that all research is value-directed and biased, and this counts for the natural sciences -- even though many don't think so. This applies to all sciences -- but for some reason, the accusation of being "just a theory" seems to stick only to evolution.
The point is, in my view, most anti-evolutionist folk are biased against evolution in the first place, then turn to escape routes like "it's just a theory" to justify this bias. If they were really motivated by this epistemological concern, they would similarily reject many other scientific theories -- but they don't. Thus, the whole idea seems disingenous to me.
Sorry if I seem like I'm flip-flopping here, I just wanted to point out some of my issues with critics of evolution. That's not to say that I don't also have problems with hyper-selectionists like Richard Dawkins who take every chance they can to ridicule religious belief, but I guess I'm trying to maintain some semblance of sticking to the topic I set for myself. Perhaps I'll discuss this in the future.
I actually have a lot of problems with scientific theories, lol, so I guess I am really motivated by my concern of the "just a theory" argument. I guess my concern is that evolution like pretty much every other scientific concept we only know so much about it. We are constantly learning new things. My friend that I got in a fairly heated discussion with (most of the heat was on his side) got on me about this and was like "What? So you don't believe in gravity either? When I drop a ball you don't believe it will hit the ground?" And it's kind of like yes, I do believe it will hit the ground, but that doesn't mean we know EVERYTHING about gravity. Hell, we just learned that gravity affects light. So yes, we know something about gravity, but that doesn't mean we should stop looking at it and trying to figure out more about it. Same with evolution. Yes, I believe in minor adaptations within species, but does that mean I believe we came from the primordial ooze? Not necessarily. Like I said in my comment, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the topic of evolution.
ReplyDeleteI mean, we used to believe earth was the center of the universe. If no one had ever been allowed to question that (like how most creationists in the natural sciences are pretty much pushed out of the sciences just because they don't think evolution is fact) then we'd still think the same way. We know alot about DNA but we do not by any means know everything about DNA and how it works.
But maybe your big problem was with me calling it a theory. I was never very good at the natural sciences so I never took many classes on it outside of the requisite intro classes in college. Is there a more accurate word I could use to describe my views? I really do not mean to bash evolutionist. I was raised in a very conservative home and was luck enough to go to a liberal college and learn that questioning things that I thought were solid fact was the best thing for people to do. I don't think evolutionists are all stupid for following science nor do i think creationists are all stupid for following religion (though I know many creationists who are not religious at all). But I do think that people who are not willing to question need to take a step back and realize that, hey, people do get stuff wrong. And we generally are wrong more often than right.
Lol, hope that kind of made sense. Wanted to clarify since I seemed to have kind of struck a nerve. :)
I wouldn't say a nerve was struck, I just have trouble when some people claim that they are freethinkers and critically challenging the scientific establishment, when what they're really doing is stubbornly holding to their own views. I also have difficulty with the idea that some Christians sometimes hold that they are being persecuted for their beliefs. In modern-day North America, at least, this is a joke. Comparing the "plight" of creationists and the historical persecution of non-believers and those whose theories didn't align with theological doctrine is similarly unhelpful, I think.
ReplyDeleteSo yeah, I have no problem with people asking questions -- I encourage it! I think what we find amongst certain groups of people is that they are actually incredibly unwilling to ask questions of their own beliefs. However, they have sometimes been able to successfully frame themselves as "freethinkers" boldly challenging the established views of science.
This is why I mentioned my concern about who is allowed to shape the debate -- I don't think it's fair for creationists to claim the position they often want to take.