“Evolution is only a theory. It hasn’t been proven.”

Here's another brilliant video from AronRa dispelling the common misperception that because we call it the "theory" of evolution that it is somehow "unproven" and therefore can be rejected. This notion comes from a misunderstanding of what scientists mean when they use the word "theory". AronRa clears that up in a little over 10 information-packed minutes. AronRa's description of the video:

"The first of a two-part final installment to this series, explaining what the words, hypothesis, fact, law, and Theory actually are, rather than what creationists want us to think they are. Hint: a scientific theory isn't a guess, but an explanative study of real phenomenon."

Continue Reading“Evolution is only a theory. It hasn’t been proven.”

Rejection of evolution across the pond

Great Britain is catching up to the U.S. when it comes to the rejection of evolution by natural selection.  Consider the following from The Guardian: Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the…

Continue ReadingRejection of evolution across the pond

More information is not necessarily better

I thought it was just me. Over the past few months, while reading some of the comments here at DI and at several forums that I frequent, I’ve been noticing that there seems to be LESS consensus on the hot topics of our time rather than more. That doesn’t seem right. With the wealth of information on the internet literally at our fingertips shouldn’t we all be better informed than ever before? Not so, says Clive Thompson in a recent issue of Wired magazine. In fact he has the stats to back it up!

Continue ReadingMore information is not necessarily better

The body is not a machine

Pyschiatrist Randolf Nesse is a gifted writer who I have followed for many years. I first learned of Nesse's work when I read Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine. Nesse is one of the many respondents to this year's annual question by Edge.org: "What will change everything?" Nesse's answer: RECOGNIZING THAT THE BODY IS NOT A MACHINE As we improve our knowledge of bodies, they don't fit very well within our venerable metaphor of the body as a "machine." One of his points is that we can describe machines, whereas a satisfying description of bodies seems so elusive. The complexity of the body is, indeed, humbling:

We have yet to acknowledge that some evolved systems may be indescribably complex. Indescribable complexity implies nothing supernatural. Bodies and their origins are purely physical. It also has nothing to do with so-called irreducible complexity, that last bastion of creationists desperate to avoid the reality of unintelligent design. Indescribable complexity does, however, confront us with the inadequacy of models built to suit our human preferences for discrete categories, specific functions, and one directional causal arrows. Worse than merely inadequate, attempts to describe the body as a machine foster inaccurate oversimplifications. Some bodily systems cannot be described in terms simple enough to be satisfying; others may not be described adequately even by the most complex models we can imagine.

[Related DI post: The Brain is not a Computer]

Continue ReadingThe body is not a machine

Belief based on evidence vs. authority, and the appropriateness of extrapolation

Richard Dawkins once wrote a letter to his ten-year old daughter, explaining the difference between belief based on evidence versus authority. This letter addresses the appropriateness of extrapolating from evidence in making solid scientific conclusions. The title of this article from a book of Dawkins' essays entitled "A Devil's Chaplin," is "Good and Bad Reasons for Believing." And I do believe that any reasonable ten year old who keeps an open mind can see the difference. After all, we do informal science all day every day. The problem for some of us is when we start discussing the undeniable reality of humans as animals, thus highlighting our kinship with "lower" animals and suggesting that our creation was natural (and is ongoing). Understanding this basic point made by Dawkins doesn't require great intelligence. It requires intellectual courage. It requires that one quits screwing around with the burden of proof when testing propositions.

Continue ReadingBelief based on evidence vs. authority, and the appropriateness of extrapolation