Here’s a site for scientists looking for help in presenting the need to vigorously teach evolution, when confronted by anti-science types.
I keep falling into the trap that this should be easy to convince people to study evolution in light of the abundant evidence in support and the elegance of natural selection. On the issue of whether the Earth is 6,000 years old, how about this: If you believe in God, the universe would (it seems to me) to be God’s elaborate “clock.” Dozens of physical and biological mechanisms are commensurate in suggesting that the Earth is far more than 6,000 years old. Why deny these numerous testable clock mechanisms in order to pursue a narrow inquiry-ending view (one of many) of an ancient book of aprochraphal (un-testable) origins?
But, alas, presenting well-established scientific facts don’t convince Creationists. In fact, no evidence convinces them that the version of the Bible that they bought at Wal-Mart is the one true inerrant version, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary. To me, it is a red flag when non-experts reject the experts when virtually all of the experts (those trained and practicing in a field) speak in unison.
Certainly, then, announcing broad-minded scientific principles is not enough to pry open most of those closed minds. In fact, the terms “science,” “academic” and “intellectual” make many creationists bristle and turn away. Turn on any 24-hour Christian AM radio show for confirmation.
This new site is sponsored by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Rockville, Maryland, an umbrella society of numerous other scientific organizations. At the site, you’ll find many links relevant to evolution, of course. Noteworthy, though, are templates for op-ed letters, and rubber to the road strategies for discussing the issues with public officials and power point presentations. These can be modified as needed, at the invitation of the Society. This is not the only site a school board would need to fight the good fight, of course, but it’s a good start.
I thought the approach to these materials was effective. Yes, studying evolution is important for “science.” But these materials hit the reader “in the pocketbook” too, by putting real life-applications of evolutionary theory into the spotlight. Here’s a sample letter: “Why is it important to teach evolution?”
Understanding evolution is critical for understanding biology. As the preeminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky stated, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Evolution is the only scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It explains the striking similarities among vastly different forms of life, the changes that occur within populations, and the development of new life forms. Excluding evolution from the science curricula or compromising its treatment deprives students of this fundamental and unifying scientific concept to explain the natural world.
Teaching and learning about evolution have immense practical value that extends beyond understanding our world. The principles of evolution underlie improvements in crops, livestock, and farming methods. Natural selection accounts for the rise in pesticide resistance among agricultural pests and informs the design of new technologies to protect crops from insects and disease. Scientists are applying lessons from evolutionary biology to environmental conservation: plants and bacteria adapted to polluted environments are being used to replenish lost vegetation and to clean up toxic environments. Species from microbes to mammals adapt to climate change; studying the mechanism and rate of these changes can help conservation experts formulate appropriate measures to protect species facing extinction.
Understanding evolution is also central to the advancement of medicine. Indeed, the entire field of “evolutionary medicine” is devoted to using the principles of evolution to study and treat human illness and disease. Concepts such as adaptation and mutation inform therapies and strategies to combat pathogens, including influenza. Models developed by evolutionary biologists have shed light on genetic variation that may account for an increased risk of Alzheimer’s and coronary heart disease. Knowing the evolutionary relationships among species allows scientists to choose appropriate organisms for the study of diseases, such as HIV. Scientists are even using the principles of natural selection to identify new drugs for detecting and treating diseases such as cancer.
Studying evolution is an excellent way for students to learn about the process of scientific inquiry. Evolution offers countless and diverse examples of the ways scientists gather and analyze information, test competing hypotheses, and ultimately come to a consensus about explanations for natural phenomena. Understanding science is essential for making informed decisions and has become increasingly important for innovation and competitiveness in the 21st century workplace. It is critical, therefore, that students receive a sound science education including evolution.
Removing evolution from the science classroom or allowing it to be compromised not only deprives students of a fundamental tenet of biology and medicine, but it will undermine their understanding of how scientific knowledge is amassed.
It's a start. But run the sample letter through a readability analyzer (for example, the one at http://www.ilovejackdaniels.com/readability.php) to see one reason it won't affect the intended audience.
You were right the first time: this audience is not swayed by reason.
Jay: Thanks for the reminder that we lose audience every time we forget to write readably. That's a handy readability tool you pasted into your comment.
I live in a very diverse state, Maryland. We have cutting edge scientists, backwoods in-breds, moderates, atheists, catholics, segregated areas, mixed areas, rich areas, poor areas, cities, suburbs, rural, latino immigrants, asians, africans, indians(India), young, old, middle aged. Maryland is like the melting pot of the melting pot. When I go to work in the city (near Washington), I deal with a variety of scientists, but also secretaries, security guards, restaurant workers, service workers. I have noticed that people here are very tolerant of eachother's race and religion, and that while in public, equal respect is shown. But a short drive out toward the Eastern shore of Maryand or to the Western Hills, and its a different story. Segregation, poverty, illiteracy, and Christianity still run rampant in many of these isolated areas.
I am having trouble understanding something, and seem to be having even more trouble trying to express my question (delicately).
How can anyone (of sound mind) readily accept evolution as fact, but still believe that a *creator* or higher power is ultimately responsible for starting it?
Unsupported claims such as: "faith is not challenged by evolution" and "something can’t have come from nothing" and "something caused the big bang" are wishful religious spoutings, at best. (While I do agree with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is dead wrong to apply this law to a forming universe because we don't *yet* have a universal theory of relativity).
Ponder this…maybe not everything has beginning, middle and end…maybe time is "relative" rather than linear, maybe Rush Limbaugh is homosexual.
Scholar: What is your explanation for where it all began? Where did the first atom or particle come from? Where did light come from?
Why do I need to explain? Everything I have encountered in my life leads me to believe that God does not exist. I can't point to any greater knowledge than that mankind currently holds. My point is that *not* knowing the answers does not affirm the existence of a higher power. I offer you a link to a wonderful book (by Joel Primack and his brilliant wife Nancy) which discusses the currently accepted theories of "cosmology, physics, and astronomy" in easily digestible, understandable english. Please explore this link Devi and others interested in our place in the universe.
http://viewfromthecenter.com/
Here is a small excerpt from the powerful book "A View From the Center of the Universe".
http://viewfromthecenter.com/excerpts/introductio…
"Unlike earlier cosmologies, the new scientific story is not intuitively simple. It can't be, because both intuition and common sense are always based on the assumption that we're on Earth. There's no way to have intuition about things one has never experienced, and most of the universe fits into that category. The new cosmology can't be intuitively simple for a second reason as well: it is based on unfamiliar concepts including relativity and quantum physics. But these theories can be translated into ordinary language and compelling images. This book suggests mythic images that we can adapt to a modern understanding of the universe. This is essential, because just as scientific cosmology cannot be explained in numbers alone, neither can it be adequately explained in everyday language. Many religions have concepts that resonate harmoniously with aspects of the new scientific picture – concepts that can, in fact, help us tremendously to appreciate the depth and meaning of the universe – but all religions also have concepts that don't. An attempt to explain the modern universe in terms only of a favorite religion would result in scientific ideas being crushed and distorted to fit narrow preconceptions, while beautiful and apt imagery would be dismissed. We need to find those concepts that work, and only those, borrowing from many religions as well as other sources. "
Another great excerpt which gets those wheels a churnin'…Devi, I think you could really benefit from expanding your viewpoint of the universe.
"Working from the assumption of their own centrality, the ancients took the cosmos – as they understood it – as the model for their lives and their religions. This book argues that we should, too. The big difference today is that science is finding out how the cosmos really works, and therefore we are the first generation that can know what the universe may really be saying. The universe is speaking and always has been, only now we humans have both the technological tools and the intellectual capability to hear and understand a lot of it.
The discovery of our universe challenges us to reframe everything, and this is truly difficult. For the vast majority of busy people, there's little point in learning a lot of science unless you can do something valuable in life with that knowledge. We want to show you that you can. The aim of this book is not only to help people understand the universe intellectually, but also to develop imagery that we can all use to grasp this new reality more fully and to open our minds to what it may mean for our lives and the lives of our descendants. As we do this, we begin to discover our extraordinary place in the universe. "
http://viewfromthecenter.com/excerpts/introductio…
Scholar: You doing the same thing the bible thumpers do: jumping to conclusions about what I must have meant, and what I think, and avoiding answers. I do not have the answer, but am seeking one. I rather doubt that anyone can have the answers to this question. But you didn't even admit that you didn't know, just like some creationist will not admit they don't know why there is so much evidence of evolution.
The question is still this: have you (or does science) an explanation for how the universe began?
Well, you answered my question with a question. Are you saying it is wrong for me to believe something based on an overwhelming proponderance of evidence?
Nobody has yet answered my question…"How can anyone readily accept evolution and science as fact, but still believe that a higher power is ultimately responsible?"
I'm guessing you haven't explore the new theories of cosmology fully, based on your quick judgement and vapid response. Please try and have an open mind while exploring our universe, and don't hesitate to provide me with constructive links to support your ideas/viewpoint/findings.
Here is another excerpt…
"Cosmology is a branch of astronomy and astrophysics that studies the origin and nature of the universe, and it is in the midst of a scientific revolution that is establishing its lasting foundations. What is emerging is humanity's first picture of the universe as a whole that might actually be true. There have been countless myths of the origin of the universe, but this is the first one that no storyteller made up – we are all witnesses on the edges of our seats.
The last time Western culture shared a coherent understanding of the universe as a comforting cosmic dwelling place was in the Middle Ages. For a thousand years, Christians, Jews, and Muslims believed that the earth was the immovable center of the universe and all the planets and stars revolved on crystal spheres around it. The idea that God had chosen a place for every person, animal, and thing in the Great Chain of Being made sense of the rigid medieval social hierarchy. But this picture was destroyed by early scientists like Galileo who discovered about four hundred years ago that the earth is not the center of the universe after all. The idea of the cosmic hierarchy lost its credibility as the organizing principle of the universe, but those early scientists couldn't replace it. Instead, for centuries they were able to say with authority what the universe is not, but not what it is. "
http://viewfromthecenter.com/excerpts/introductio…
Scholar asked (a few comments ago): "How can anyone (of sound mind) readily accept evolution as fact, but still believe that a *creator* or higher power is ultimately responsible for starting it?"
I can think of a couple of ways to answer Scholar's question. First, recognize that the origin of *life* and the origin of *species* are completely different questions. Evolution explains the origin of *species* given that life *already exists.* It cannot (yet) explain the origin of *life*. Therefore, believing both that evolution is a fact and that a creator ultimately started it are not mutually-incompatible beliefs. To the contrary, many "smart" people, including several men who were the Founding Fathers of America, were deists — believing that a creator started the Universe, but thereafter has ignored it. It's unclear to me why a creator would do such a thing — create the Universe and then ignore it — but that's beside the point. All I am arguing is that it is not crazy to believe this.
Second, recognize that evolution can explain *how* species came into existence, but it will never explain *why* they did. Many people who believe in evolution, are uncomfortable with the idea that life has no greater purpose. So, they give it one, by believing in a creator. Again, it might be a delusion, but it is, for most people, a benevolent delusion.
In sum, accepting evolution as a fact and believing that a creator started it are compatible beliefs. Where I draw the line (and where I think it must be drawn) is where believers in a creator want *others* to share their belief in the same creator, especially when they also want to reject evolution in the process. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof, and creationists, so far, have fallen far short of this burden.
Thanks Grumpy, I had a feeling the question was invalid.
I would like to clarify that I don't feel that I am "better" than anyone else (not in response to what Grumpy said), but I do think that I have been exposed to more cutting edge science than most people (had a job working for a science newspaper, currently working in the sciences), and have had a wider view of humanity in my travels, whether in books(media) or by plane, train, or automobile. And I have mentioned before (post 914), though I don't enjoy doing it, that I do not posess (all) the answers to the universe. I should point out that most people seem to have stopped insisting that God must have created the first life on Earth. Thats quite a big step forward, even over the past decade I have noticed a difference in the prevailing opinions on the internet, toward science as the answer to any question.
Back to Devi's questions, I'm not sure those are valid either. (Where did the first atom or particle come from?) That question assumes that the laws of cosmology would apply to our understanding of beginnings, middles, and ends in human time.
Grumpy, my revised question was more about science in general than evolution. How can anyone believe in science (evolution, cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, physics, geology, psychology, sociology, math/stats, genetics, biology) but still believe in a Creator?
I think I have the answer, at least as it satisfies me. These people *believe* in science, however they have not actually studied the science.
Perhaps even Grumpy, as wise as you are, have not been exposed to the more recent scientific discoveries in cosmology and space science.
Hmm… I knew that founding fathers thing sounded fishy. I don't think that the founding fathers had sufficient knowledge of *evolution* as they were at least a century before the genetic revolution. Thus, while they may have been smart as "whips", it is not fair to use them as a comparison because they were scientifically naive (sort of like LJC, only with rational minds).
What we do "know" is that there was some kind of Big Bang thirteen BILLION years ago. With our most powerful telescopes, we can see almost to the "end/beginning" of the of the universe! Someday, in the future we may be able to see the very leading edge of the universe as it expands…but that is only from our "eyes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
Scholar wrote: "Hmm… I knew that founding fathers thing sounded fishy. I don’t think that the founding fathers had sufficient knowledge of *evolution* as they were at least a century before the genetic revolution. Thus, while they may have been smart as “whips”, it is not fair to use them as a comparison because they were scientifically naive (sort of like LJC, only with rational minds)."
Sorry if I created confusion, Scholar. I did not say, nor did I intend to suggest, that some of our Founding Fathers knew about evolution. I merely pointed out that they were deists. Deism — the belief that a creator exists, but is more like a home builder (who creates and leaves) than a gardener (who creates and tends) — existed long before evolution came along, so my use of the Founders as an example of the former is, I think, valid.
As regards your broader question about the entire field science versus faith in a creator, again, the same argument can be made: none of the sciences explains the origin of life and none answers the 'why' question. The sciences deal with what is observable; faith deals with what is not. The conflict between them arises when people claim they can use the tools and methods of one to answer questions that logically belong to the other.
As regards my awareness of recent discoveries in cosmology and space science, please be more specific. Obviously, no one can keep up with all scientific advances, but I will point out that neither cosmology nor space science have, to my knowledge, provided unassailable answers to the so-called "first cause" question. (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_cause). Even the fact that our telescopes can reach 13+ billion years into the past does not explain the origin of life or answer the 'why' question. It merely helps refute one or two specific claims made in the Bible…a feat that has already been repeatedly accomplished.
Going back to the original post, we need to distinguish between arguing with creationists about their beliefs and arguing with them about whether their beliefs should be taught in public school science classes. The latter is where people need to focus their energy; the former is usually a waste of time. After all, if someone believes that the Bible is the Word of God, then she is unlikely to be influenced by contrary evidence from (heathen) scientists carrying (Godless) scientific facts. It's like trying to change the mind of someone who firmly believes that a unicorn lives in his backyard. Even if you show video of the backyard with no unicorn, the person can still invent excuses to maintain his delusional belief: the unicorn was hiding, the unicorn went for a run, the unicorn is invisible, etc. Even so, we can still properly reject unicorns as a subject for public school biology class.
As usual, what you say is correct Grumpy. Still, I think that the theory of "singularities" pretty much answers the questions at hand. There is no longer a need for a "first cause", at least in the eyes of many top cosmologists. As we all know, leading edge scientists are nearly all "anti-creator" (when polled). I am quite curious to read the link about "first cause", thanks.
Here is an excerpt about singularities.
"According to general relativity, the Big Bang in the beginning of the universe started as a singularity, where all the universe was a single point. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity
…the question "What was there before the universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. This has been put forward by *Stephen Hawking*, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.
This is an excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_cause
*emphasis added*
Further to Scholar's comment about black holes, there is a concept in physics known as the Schwartzchild radius, which says that for any given mass, there is a radius (r) such that if you compress the mass into a sphere having a radius smaller then r, the mass will become a black hole. For example, if our sun were compressed into a sphere having a radius of less than about 0.75 miles (1.25 km), then our sun would become a black hole. Larger objects would have correspondingly larger radii.
Now, consider the singularity that Scholar mentions, which posits the entire mass of our Universe being compressed into a sphere the size of, say, a grapefruit. Ignoring questions about charge and spin which the Universe might have had at The Beginning, it is theoretically possible that the Universe became a black hole upon its creation…meaning that we might all be living inside a black hole.
Of course, the way around this argument is to observe that although the Schwartzchild radius applies to masses inside our Universe, there is no way to know if it also applies to our Universe itself; i.e., we have no way of discovering what our Universe looks like from the "outside." Perhaps the emptiness (?) into which our Universe exploded in the Big Bang operates under different properties.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with keeping creationism out of public school science classes, but I think it is intriguing to consider.
The Schwartzschild radius is the nominal radius of the event horizon, that distance from the apparent center of a singularity closer than which anything (photons, etc) couldn't get back out again. It's called nominal, because it is calculated by dividing the circumference of the sphere out of which nothing comes, by two-pi. There is no actual radius; it could be an infinite distance to the center within that circumference.
The Schwartzschild radius is not the physical size to which a mass must be compressed to create a singularity. The physical size of the mass within a black hole may be much smaller (as seen from the outside) than this measurement. Or, it may all be concentrated right below the event horizon. Math gets fuzzy when you juggle infinities of unknown order.
The link that scholar supplied is fascinating. I didn't know my query even had a name, but now I do: "first cause." It was good reading, thanks.
And I wholeheartedly support grumpy's belief that we need to keep creationism out of science classes. To do anything else is to teach someone's religion as fact.
Here is a press release about schools and creation…
President Confuses Science and Belief, Puts Schoolchildren at Risk
WASHINGTON – "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses."
In comments to journalists on August 1, the President said that "both sides ought to be properly taught." "If he meant that intelligent design should be given equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's science classrooms, then he is undermining efforts to increase the understanding of science," Spilhaus said in a statement. "'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory." Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."
"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."
"Ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science. Outside the sphere of their laboratories and science classrooms, scientists and students alike may believe what they choose about the origins of life, but inside that sphere, they are bound by the scientific method," Spilhaus said.
AGU is a scientific society, comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists. It publishes a dozen peer reviewed journal series and holds meetings at which current research is presented to the scientific community and the public.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0528.html
Please share this link with anybody who says that intelligent design qualifies as a "theory". The scientific community is standing up on this issue.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/918_sta…
From the National Academy of Sciences…
In March, 1998, out of concern about "the widespread misunderstandings about evolution and the conviction that creationism should be taught in science classes", the National Academy of Science released a teachers' handbook on Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science and inaugurated a website with resources on evolution and creationism.
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98 http://www4.nas.edu/opus/evolve.nsf