Vast Majority of Scientists (VMS) are talking to Conservative Christians (CC).
VMS: Evolution is the best explanation for the development of natural life. It doesn't explain spirituality, just the development of the species.
CC: nope
VMS: nope? What do you mean, nope? We are the experts in this field, you know.
CC: nope. you guys are good at splitting atoms and mixing chemicals, but you are completely wrong on this.
VMS: We are wrong? What training do you have in cell biology or zoology?
CC: none.
VMS: what proof do you have that evolution doesn't occur across species?
CC: it just doesn't.
VMS: It just doesn't?
CC: yeah, it just doesn't. If it did, monkeys would be turning into people and dropping out of the trees.
VMS: sigh. Your turn, VMH (Vast Majority of Historians)
VMH: America is not a Christian nation.
CC: is too.
VMH: what is your proof?
CC: It says right so on our coins. And in the Declaration.
VMH: That is your proof?
CC: Yeah. And we like that conclusion. You and the VMS are really not that good. It doesn't take much to know history or science. Anyone can do it.
VMH: sigh.
10 comments:
Nice summary, Streak.
I think my favorite development in the ID v. VMS debate was when, in response to the Discovery Institute's list of 100 scientists who are skeptical of evolutionary claims, the NCSE put together a list of over 500 scientists who thought otherwise. Except this list was only scientists named Steve.
Besides making me laugh, I think "Project Steve" finds a nice balance between countering the numbers that the DI throws around while at the same time acknowledging that there's something just a little frivolous about judging scholarship by headcount.
That said, it would be nice if more scientists acknowledged that their claims were only limited to explanations of natural development and weren't so quick to write off religious folk.
Streak
Check out this cartoon at WorkingForChange. I think you'll like it.
BB
Oh man, that is a great cartoon. Thanks, BB.
Nice comments, Leighton, and thanks for the link to Pharyngula. I also discovered Red State Rabble, and The Evolution Project from that link. Good stuff.
Trying to reason with the closed minded is like trying to reason with a teenager. It just gives you something to do until you realize you can't.
Thanks for your thoughts, Leighton. I understand the dynamics you describe and it seems a pretty accurate description to me. I've been reading Pharyngula for a few months now after finding a link on your site. So I owe you a belated thanks for that.
My point was more of a throwaway bit of wishful thinking. But as long as it's spurred some discussion, perhaps I should rephrase it and give it more context.
I'm an evangelical Christian who holds a very high view of science. I know other people who are able to blend the two quite elegantly. What saddens me is the apparent enmity between many other Christians and people take science very seriously.
As far as I understand it, evolutionary biology as a discipline isn't concerned with the question of how life originated, but rather how life, once begun, became more complex and more diverse.
Obviously, young earth creationists will always be threatened even by the latter claims. But I think plenty of Christians not in that subset still feel threatened by evolutionary biology because they wrongly understand it to make certain claims about the origins of life — claims that somehow disprove the existence of their God.
To be fair, I'm not sure that this misperception is only a function of their religion. Many non-Christians also don't understand the boundaries of evolutionary biology. I'm not so sure that these boundaries are quite as obvious as you want to make it seem. Or maybe your standard of what it takes to be "glancingly familiar" might exclude more people than it sounds.
In part, I think this misunderstanding is because the only evolutionary education that many people get isn't terribly nuanced. I don't say that because I'm on the side of the ID folk in the recent curriculum firestorms. I'm not. But as you say, many scientists don't feel terribly inclined to qualify the boundaries of their work. And for good reason. But if they don't see the need to do it, then your average high school biology teacher probably isn't going to make the distinction either.
I think that this misconception also happens in part because of a media phenomenon which parallels your second point. The scientists who tend to get a lot of coverage are the Richard Dawkinses of the world, who have no problem extrapolating from their knowledge of evolutionary biology to make claims about the origins of life or the invalidity of religion.
On the other side, I think that evolutionary biology as a field can be regrettably inhospitable to Christians, if not downright hostile. I'm not one who would ever claim that Christians are a persecuted minority in our country. And "persecution" is way, way, way too strong a word to use in this case. So please don't think I'm going there. But there aren't a whole lot of Christians in the field. And the Christian grad students and post docs that I know tend to be pretty closeted about their religious identity.
It may be that many biologists don't have a very nuanced understanding of the range of views within Christianity. I've talked to biologists who were astonished to discover that not all Christians were young earth creationists. As you say, it's those Christians who the media tend to focus on. And maybe scientists who are treated like the enemy by certain Christians will eventually begin to play the part.
I hope that wasn't too long. I tend to overexplain when I wasn't clear enough the first time. Ultimately, I wish there was a way to reduce the rancor, but I admit that I don't have many answers. Better education is certainly part of the solution. And perhaps more visible examples of Christian biologists who are able to function with integrity in both spheres.
I would be well outside the boundaries of my own knowledge to comment on the current state of abiogenesis or cosmological research, so I don't have much of a response to your first post, other than to say that I didn't mean to imply that there was no scientific point to OOL research. That research seeks to answer some fascinatingly ultimate questions. For a layman like me, it's mindblowingly awesome that some of that research is even possible, but I didn't mean to restrict those questions to the realm of faith.
As for your second post, much of my knowledge of Christians in the biological fields is anecdotal and probably not worth going into in a public forum. But I think I have a good understanding for the mindset of many nonreligious scientists (and you've helped me clarify that further), and it seems that you've shown enough empathy for Christians working in these fields that I don't need to push my point further. Well, other than to say that part of what I'm expressing may go back to a form of the "evangelical neurosis" that you and I have discussed before — that sometimes it's hard for Christians to exclude themselves when they hear other Christians being attacked, even if they agree that the attacks have some merit.
I hadn't encountered Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria before. Well, that is to say, the idea behind it is something that I've embraced for some time. But I've never had the fancy name for it. I took the time to find an article in which Gould wrote about this idea and one bit struck me in particular:
I believe, with all my heart, in a respectful, even loving concordat between our magisteria—the NOMA solution. NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectua] grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance. NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. This mutual humility has important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions.
That last statement hints at some of what I've been trying to get at. I still don't know if there's a good answer to the tensions between people who share my religion and people who embrace my view of science. But part of the answer might be in Gould's call for mutual humility.
That said, I understand and agree that Gould does not mean that scientists need to be humble or conciliatory when their realm is encroached upon by religious people who have no scientific authority.
I've enjoyed the discussion and, as always, I've appreciated your thoughts, Leighton. I'd certainly welcome anything else you wanted to add. But I've got family coming into town this weekend, so this is probably it for me for now.
the only views that tend to disgust practicing scientists are the ones that demand that counterfactual things be true of the physical world. (The intuition is that if it's "true" despite not being supported by the evidence, the evidence at least had better not contradict it.)
Isn't that the real problem with this debate. Creationists are wanting issues of faith to be considered "true" despite no scientific evidence (and in fact, no real way for science to corroborate) those claims?
Leighton,
Are you reading this thread at Jesus Politics? Atticus restates the idea that macro evolution is unproven, cites the book Darwin's Black Box, and goes on to say that the fossil record undermines Darwin more than helps it.
Anyway, interesting thread. I become annoyed with some of this because I don't have a good grasp on the science to refute some of these, and am frustrated when creationists would point to one or two books to counter the vast majority of scientists.
:) No need to explain. I am finding it increasingly toxic to participate where JAB speaks.
Thanks for your thoughts, though.
Post a Comment