Can Science Trump Religion?

This is not a question of whether science can or should prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God or gods. Some of us believe that we are living in an era of rationalism, or enlightenment. Some, like Dawkins, even hope to see rational thinking purge religious clap trappings from society. The question is, can rational thinking ever purge society of silly ideas? I was reading the Dale McGowan post Best Practices 4: Teach engaged coexistence and he obliquely gives the answer. Consider:

  • Coperincus (ca. 1500) decisively proved that Astrology was unfounded.
  • Avagadro (ca. 1800) proved that Homeopathy was bunk.
  • John Philips (ca. 1840) proved that the Earth was at least 90 million years old (before Darwin published, or more accurate isotopic dating techniques were even imagined)
  • Hubble (ca. 1920) proved that not only was our solar system tiny compared to the galaxy, but that our galaxy is infinitesimal compared to the visible universe.
Surely we would no longer find anyone to believe that the stars predict our future, that water has memory, that the Earth is young, or that the Earth is the sole point of all creation. No amount of education of thinking individuals will ever remove the comforting effects of belief in paranormal salvation for the majority of mankind.

Continue ReadingCan Science Trump Religion?

My growing impatience with creationists: a side by side comparison of evolutionary biology and creationism

Over the past three years of writing for DI, I have discussed evolution with many creationists who have posted comments at this site. These exchanges have been good for me. They have forced me to think harder about exactly what it is that I understand about evolution and what evidence supports my understanding. These exchanges have also helped me to understand the concerns and mental gymnastics of creationists. I now find myself getting increasingly impatient with the creationists, however. It was initially interesting to banter with creationists because I enjoyed the challenge of trying to understand why they claimed the things they claimed. I’m now getting annoyed with these creationists arguments, and it mostly has to do with the refusal of creationists to acknowledge relevant scientific observations from the real world. My frustration also stems from the anti-scientific mindset of creationists. As a group, creationists refuse to argue even-handedly. They become skeptical only when it suits their immediate needs—they don’t apply skepticism equally both to their own claims and to the claims of those with whom they disagree. As a group, they scurry to find disingenuous arguments to support points that they actually learned in churches, not in science books. Many of them are consciously dishonest, and when you call attention to their obvious untruths, they try to change the subject. There are exceptions to this rule. There are some creationists who aren’t consciously being dishonest, but those creationists tend to be so incredibly ignorant of the principles of the scientific theory of evolution that they lack the ability to meaningfully criticize evolution. Their arguments are aimed at things that no competent scientist has ever claimed. For numerous excellent examples of this problem, see these videos by AronRa here and here. It is well-established that humans are susceptible to committing errors caused by the confirmation bias. We seek out evidence that supports our current beliefs. Scientists are imminently aware of this danger and they work hard to design experiments to counteract this bias. Creationists (who don’t even try to run experiments) excel at feeding their confirmation biases. They proudly exclude evidence that threatens their opinions. Creationists come to mind when I consider David Hume’s quote: “Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” [A Treatise of Human Nature, (2nd Ed.), Book II, Part I, Section III (“Of the influencing motives of the will”) (1739)].

Continue ReadingMy growing impatience with creationists: a side by side comparison of evolutionary biology and creationism

Why is there a fire hydrant in the middle of Forest Park?

Why is this fire hydrant in the middle of Forest Park, in St. Louis, Missouri? Is it there for the firefighters in case an ant hill catches fire? A flower? If I used the logic employed by Creationists, I might simply say that God put that fire hydrant there. To the extent that anyone accepts such an explanation, there would be no need for further inquiry (nor any real possibility for further inquiry). To the extent that someone accepts the "explanation" that "God did it," he or she would miss out on a rich factual history, teaming with direct evidence upon which one can build an incredibly strong circumstantial case. One really can explain the presence of this hydrant, even without direct evidence (presumably, no one who saw this hydrant being installed is still alive). I'm working on a post regarding creationism (including its modern version, "intelligent design"). Yesterday's walk in the park reminded me that circumstantial evidence can be strong, indeed. In fact, circumstantial evidence can make for airtight cases. Circumstantial evidence can even be much stronger than authority (because authorities--e.g., the park police--are often wrong). Therefore, people who really want to know don't simply throw up their hands and declare that the hydrant is there "Because God put it there" even when a person in a position of authority tells them this story. hydrant-up-close1An inspection of this hydrant shows that it was manufactured in 1887 (or is that number 1881?). It was thus installed sometime after 1881. Why would it be installed in the middle of a park? Perhaps it wasn't just a park back then. Perhaps it was installed because that land was to be the location of a huge construction project: the 1904 World's Fair held in St. Louis. Perhaps, after the Fair was over, this hydrant was not removed. Perhaps there are some photos of the Fair that would include this little fire hydrant, a vestigial reminder that something much more elaborate once occupied this place. All of these questions can be answered if one takes the time to examine real evidence that is currently available. If one looked further for evidence, one would find tons of corroboration, including a huge "Flight Cage" that now houses a bird exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo, also an original part of the 1904 World's Fair. Of course, one could also find numerous books filled with photos, names, dates and interviews. Notice that I'm referring to corroborative written materials--many sources that overlap--not simply reading one book over and over until one is more and more convinced. Creationists are happy to employ these open-minded investigative methods almost always, in almost every aspect of their lives. This method of asking questions and then following the evidence wherever it leads is actually an extension of common sense. It's a shame that when it comes to one particular incredibly important aspect of their lives, determining what kind of beings we are, creationists refuse to use this direct extension of common sense.

Continue ReadingWhy is there a fire hydrant in the middle of Forest Park?

Comfort – Discomfort

Iconic anti-evolutionist Ray Comfort has come forward again. He's written a book entitled, "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics". Plenty of scathing reviews are available. F'rinstance:

His style of writing can barely be called argumentative. He posits no compelling evidence for his beliefs, makes blind assertions, and clearly does not understand natural forces such as evolution by natural selection and by writing a book which mischaracterizes science, is undermining observation, experimentation, rational thought and critical thinking.

or a 5-star review, presuming Poe:

Ray is the master of satire. While reading this fine book I could just picture him sitting around, getting wasted, and dreaming up all of these hilarious proofs. He is a genius!

The reviews discuss how every point made in the book had already been debunked thoroughly on or around Comfort's online publications (blogs, videos, etc). Why, they ask, does he keep shutting down blogs and popping up new ones? Who is this book going to reach that hasn't already made up their minds? Granted, one can also apply that last argument to pro-science books like The God Delusion or The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Meanwhile, Qualia Soup has produced a concise video clearly explaining what evolution is and isn't, in 10 minutes. It implicitly refutes every point we've seen Comfort make, without the discomfort of mentioning Comfort.

Continue ReadingComfort – Discomfort

Framing the Energy Issue

Do you remember Dubya's "Clear Skies Initiative"? It was an plan to relax air pollution standards. His "Healthy Forests Initiative" was a timber industry clear-cutting plan. I recently saw an ad for EnergyTomorrow.org. As near as I can tell, it follows Sarah Palin's policy of "Drill, drill, drill!". Apparently, long term energy security depends on using up our petroleum reserves as quickly as possible. And moreover to direct its use as fuel, rather than conserving it for producing plastics and fertilizer. I suppose that they mean "tomorrow" in the sense of as soon as possible. But the ad and the site is framed to look "green". As if.

Continue ReadingFraming the Energy Issue