Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Damnant quod non intelligunt
America's preoccupation with religion baffles many countries across the world. That a struggle between church and state seems imminent in this day and age is almost backwards - it defies either our modern conception of continuous progress or our definition of progress as secularization, or both! The highlight of this struggle, and the item most often seized by the contemporary press, is the struggle between evolutionary biology and young-earth creationism.
Young-earth creationism (YEC), at its core, is an application of the Protestant Bible, the first sentence of which is:
YECs also tend to believe in a literal flood in the book of Genesis. Creationist theorists have devised a set of events, from an original flood, to a levelling of the earth, to a subsequent rapid continental shift, to explain in terms of a recent global cataclysm the geological features of the planet that appear to have been formed over millions of years. Another theory explains discrepancies in dating methods by producing examples in which they have been vastly mistaken.
YECs frequently explain the popular explanations using long time periods by pointing out that nothing in the evidence itself suggests long time periods, only our interpretation of the evidence. For instance, nothing in the fossil record suggests that layer X represents 65 million years ago while layer Y represents 250 million years ago. They are simply bones buried in rocks. An alien looking at a slab of sediment, knowing nothing about geology or paleontology, would not see vast time periods.
Our interpretation of fossil, geological, and other evidence, however, has led us to assign vast time periods to different rock layers and to use certain fossils as markers for those time periods. YECs also point out that at least one former marker critter, the Coelecanth, believed to show that rocks were 200 million years old, was found alive and well in the 20th century.
However, equivocal evidence notwithstanding, most YEC "proofs" are unscientific or even fallacious, frequently pointing not to evidence for YEC but evidence against evolution or long time periods (in their opinion).
It is important to note that not all version of creationism imply that the Earth is newly created. Many people who believe that God is the ultimate Creator do not believe that the Earth is only 6000 or 10000 or even 10 million years old. These people are called, variously, long-age creationists, old-earth creationists, progressive creationists, theistic evolutionists, and ID advocates. Intelligent design, in particular, is unique because it postulates only that an intelligence is necessary to explain some intricate biochemical features and systems.
Regardless of the truth of any sort of creationism, most scientists - religious or not - have accepted the theory of evolution by natural selection and its requisite long ages. Many Americans have also accepted the scientific reasoning behind the theory. Around the world, the theory of evolution by natural selection is considered as factual as the theory of gravity.
Scientists and science-promoting organizations have attempted to educate the public for decades by pointing out flaws in creationist reasoning and argumentation, and by presenting evolutionary biology in what they consider to be a simple layman's format. Many have been convinced by dumbed-down versions of evolutionary biology.
And yet the battle rages on. In the past six years, there have been nearly a dozen cases in which religious people have tried to insert intelligent design into state or local school curriculums, much to the chagrin of church-state separation advocates and many scientists. (Ironically, in some parts of Europe and Canada, where creationist beliefs are much less common, the government will pay for private schools which teach creationist curriculums.)
Why is this debate still raging on, almost 150 years after it began? And why does it seem to be isolated to the United States?
1. Many Americans believe that the Bible is literally or figuratively true.
This means that the text of the Bible contains true statements, including the statement that God created the universe. If one has been convinced through personal or other evidence that the Bible is true, or that God exists and influenced the Bible's authorship, it is difficult to convince such a person that something else is more true than the Bible. After all, why should mere humans be able to produce truths that are more true than the actual teachings of God? What makes humanity more qualified to say what is true than the creator of the universe?
In other countries, belief in the literal or figurative truth of the Bible is not held so dearly. Citizens of most European nations are more inclined to mix and match religious beliefs than Americans. Additionally, more of them tend to be atheists than their American counterparts at similar education levels. (In all countries, more educated people are more likely to be atheists than less educated people.)
2. Science is adaptive and fluid, and people are smart enough to recognize this.
Far from the absolute truth of religious dogma, scientific truths can change from day to day. A widely accepted theory, like the Big Bang and inflation, may be overturned by a single discovery at any time. This does not provide much security to those who feel that truths should be true. Why should they trust scientists over what they believe to the Word of God, when the scientific findings could be overturned tomorrow? Why not stick to what they "know" to be the actual truth?
Americans like their lives to be static. Their culture has evolved (?) in such a way that social changes are resisted tooth and nail by people who found older systems more comfortable. As a whole, social change in America takes place very slowly and on very small scales. In some areas, it is an entirely foreign concept. On the other hand, Europe saw enormous social change during the 20th century, leading to a much more fluid culture that can handle day-to-day changes in scientific thought.
3. Creationists phrase the battle in terms of a debate, not a scientific search
Americans are all about justice, and are fiercely independent, an artifact of their exploratory history. They love it when things are fair, when both parties get a chance to speak their minds, and when people are allowed to decide for themselves between two ideas. If one side won't let the other side speak, Americans assume that they must be hiding something. As Eugenie Scott, an avid defender of evolution, writes:
The idea of an individual decision, backed by competing interpretations, appeals to the American people, who wonder what scientists are trying to hide by restricting access to ID and creationist materials.
4. Evolution proponents often point out that other creation stories exist
People who are creationists will usually not accept the validity of other creation stories. Since they believe in the truth of the Biblical text, they will argue that while those stories are myths, while their story is the real story and should be taught. This argument should be abandoned, because it only increases the suspicion that evolution proponents consider no creation story to be true, making them functional atheists. After all, considering every creation story to be equivalently valid is only possible if one believes none of those stories, giving each an equal validity rating of zero.
To many fundamentalist Christians, there is nothing more Satanic than an atheist. Even believers in other gods are considered to be more sane than believers in no god, because at least the believers recognize what Carl Sagan called the Numinous.
5. Evolution proponents often argue that many Christians (and the Roman Catholic Church) have accepted evolution
Fundamentalist groups often consider these people to be compromisers, apostates, or sometimes not even Christians at all. Arguing that Christians have accepted evolution seems like arguing that fish have accepted that they have lungs. Since many American evangelicals will go out of their way to avoid doctrinal similarities to Catholicism, which many view as corrupt or even evil, the Pope's acceptance of evolution is damning evidence against it.
(Some evangelical theology books even insinuate that the Catholic Church is either the Beast or the Whore in the book of Revelations.)
6. Demands for evidence often turn up "evolution of the gaps"
Since the beginning, evolution has been sorely lacking for evidence, largely thanks to lack of competing explanations. As one scientist writes:
Since creationists don't accept the initial proposition - that creatures did evolve - and really have no philosophical reason to consider a natural explanation over their existing explanation, this argument is wholly unconvincing. Natural selection, in this case, is used in the same sense as the intelligent designer, merely becoming the stupid designer (or the "blind watchmaker", as Richard Dawkins put it). Textbooks and journal articles often state, without any reservation (or evidence), that evolution or natural selection has provided creatures or biochemical systems with a certain capability. From a natural perspective, there is no plausible alternative, since natural selection has no scientific competitor. It is only natural that, if something exists, natural selection provided it. However, a paranormal or supernatural perspective does provide several alternatives, and it would be impossible to distinguish between the two. (See point 11.)
Creationists call this "evolution-of-the gaps" in a parody of the oft-ridiculed "god-of-the-gaps". Saying that we don't know how it happened, but surely natural selection did it is frequently no more convincing and appears no less faith-based than saying that surely God did it.
In arguing for evolution, one should be content to admit that we don't know whether natural selection led to a particular development, although scientists must assume it did. Emphasizing that this is an assumption will convince many more people than making a blind assertion of faith.
7. Demands for evidence often turn up complex articles
Most creationists are not biologists. Most are not scientists. Similarly, most who accept evolution are not scientists, either, since we're talking about the American public at large.
Replying to requests for evidence by citing articles with titles like "Methylglyoxal Modification of mSin3A Links Glycolysis to Angiopoietin-2 Transcription" does not convince anybody. Only a few words in that title (modification, of, links, to) are even recognizable by laypeople. None of the concepts are comprehensible without a significant background in organic chemistry and biochemisty - two years of undergraduate study.
It would be like replying to a request for a summary of the evangelical Christian salvation message with an article title "Imminent incarnation of infinite solitude ontologically links Christ's transcendent transfiguration to the Kantian omniscient Biblical utilitarian complex".
Requests for evidence should be granted by explanations in layman's terms. The inability to describe one's views without using buzzwords often reflects a poor comprehension of the view.
8. Arguments and evidences often conflate "could" and "did"
The fact is that nobody really knows what happened in the development of life on Earth. Evolution provides us with a plausible natural explanation, provided we assume that natural selection did indeed perform the momentous feats credited to it. However, the abundance of evidence credited to evolution might more readily be called an abundance of evidence for a progressive developmental framework, in which creatures have changed over time to become more suited to their changing environment.
At the present time, evolution by natural selection is the only plausible natural developmental framework. Thus, scientists are forced to conclude that because evolution could explain the origin of species, evolution does explain the origin of species. There is simply no plausible alternative. However, those with religious viewpoints disagree, and can provide several other plausible alternatives within their supernatural framework. Arguing that all evidence for progressive development points to evolution is meaningless in this case. To those working from a supernatural framework, leaping from "could evolve" to "did evolve" is a non sequitur.
(Obviously, leaping from "could create" to "did create" is not rejected quite as strongly!)
9. Evolutionary research does not use the "standard" scientific method
Most Americans are not scientists. Therefore, when they learn the scientific method in high school, they assume forever that that is the way that scientists actually work in all cases. They feel that every scientific study should consist of a hypothesis, an experiment, results, and a conclusion. They also feel that each such experiment should be replicable by other scientists. Their views are further supported by the fact that physics and chemistry often do work that way.
However, evolution research is not largely experimental. Since most of the events being studied took place in the past, it is usually difficult, expensive, or impossible to perform a repetitive experiment demonstrating the truth of the matter and eliminating confounding factors. Even actual experiments involving, for instance, irradiating bacteria to induce mutation, do not include the same precise measurements as chemical reactions.
This lack of an experimental method makes evolutionary research seem less reliable than physical research. I can't duplicate the origin of a species in my living room, but I can slide a block down a ramp or mix two chemicals.
10. Arguments often conflate "natural selection" and "evolution"
Darwin's theory is called "evolution by natural selection". As I've written numerous times, natural selection is presently the only natural explanation for evolution. Functionally, the two terms are considered identical, but semantically, they are not. Natural selection is the means by which scientists claim evolution proceeded, but it could have proceeded via other means. Evolution, on the other hand, is the theory that all life on Earth developed from a single unicellular source creature (or set of similar source creatures). So evolution is the process of biogenesis and development while natural selection is the means by which it occurred.
Creationists separate the two terms. Very few creationists would doubt or even bother questioning whether natural selection shifts the distribution of alleles in the population, or even that it drives certain alleles into extinction. This is Darwin's most obvious conclusion and humans have been using it for thousands of years in breeding crops and animals.
However, they severely criticize the assumption that small-scale natural selection can be extended to explain full-scale evolution. Most arguments on this topic are based on faulty reasoning, so it must be said that creationist arguments against this extension are largely faith-based. However, there is no good scientific reason to assume that we can make this extension, except that there is no scientific alternative.
This is particularly in reference to intelligent design. The ID theory usually postulates that certain structures are too complicated to have been designed via natural selection, and so some intelligent manipulation was required to achieve those results. Sometimes, the intelligent designer is invoked without mentioning natural selection. This is not inherently a religious theory, although those who hear it inevitably replace the intelligent designer with God.
The problem with the theory is this: There is no way to distinguish it from natural selection. If an intelligent designer did manipulate ancient (or modern) DNA to produce its desired results, how would we know? Would it leave a signature in the DNA? Is there any evidence it could leave that we could not later explain with all-powerful natural selection?
So it comes back to faith: If you want to believe in an intelligent designer, you can. Nothing is stopping you, since the observed result is identical. If you don't, that's fine, too.
12. Naive theories of biology
When people who have a transformational theory of biology hear about evolution, it makes sense intuitively. One creature slowly, over successive generations, transforms into another, which transforms into another, etc. Under the transformational model, a white moth can be expected to have a slightly less white offspring, which in turn has a slightly less white offspring, until all of the moths are black.
However, this is not the theory of natural selection as stated by Darwin, and not the theory that people use today. The actual theory of natural selection states that certain traits lead to better chances of reproduction. The actual theory deals mainly with statistical predictions and observations of allele distribution within a fixed population, along with mutations adding new alleles to the set. In the allele shifting and mutation model, the white moth can have a black offspring, which has several black offspring of its own, etc.
As children, we naturally tend to develop the transformational model, and studies have shown that religious people tend to keep it throughout adulthood.
13. Scientists are not theologians, and vice versa
Scientists often have no authority to make the assertions they make about Biblical or theological topics. Christianity is probably not their area of expertise, and they often make foolish-sounding charges against Christians or religion in general. When Watson and Crick discovered DNA, they triumphantly declared the defeat of the "God hypothesis", whatever that meant. Additionally, scientists arguing against religion (or any supernatural/paranormal hypothesis) often forget that facts are true even if they are not scientifically proven. The laws of nature do not change when we discover them, and God exists (or doesn't) whether we can scientifically prove his existence or not.
Theologians, particularly law theologians, on the other hand, are not biologists. They often parrot the ideas of actual theologians without understanding, or confuse a scientific experiment with a debate. (Debates, after all, are common in their field.) They make assertions about the "theory status" of evolution without understanding the scientific definition of theory. They use arguments about moon dust that were discredited in the 1960s. Furthermore, they try to use fallacious understandings of evolution as silver bullets (such as "Why are there still monkeys?").
These arguments make each side look ridiculous to the other. Instead of sticking to research, scientists fall into the debate trap, while creationists hammer them with fallacious arguments. All in all, both sides look pretty silly to neutral observers, and each other, when the smoke clears. (Answers in Genesis, admirably, advises its followers not to use many of these ridiculous arguments.)
14. Ockham's Razor
Ockham's Razor is famously used to resolve the indistinguishability conundrum. The famous statement argues that given two theories that equally explain the available evidence, we should prefer the one which makes the fewest assumptions. In the case of intelligent design, the biggest such assumption, the elephant in the room, is the existence of such a designer. According to Ockham's Razor, we should prefer the explanation that does not require us to postulate an unknown designer (that is, natural selection).
Of course, some people's assurance in the external designer (God) is certain beyond any reasonable doubt. In that case, both theories are once again equivalent, in terms of evidence they can explain. We cannot say that natural selection did create the species, because we have an alternative. However, we cannot say that that alternative is correct, either. Ockham's Razor does not help us here.
We must in that case turn to some additional evidence - a text that claims to be an actual message from the designer, the author's signature on the world - and analyze that for authenticity. If we are convinced that the text is what it claims to be, we can use its claim that the designer did indeed create the species to choose a theory (ID).
As an example, ancient people once postulated that the earth was the center of the universe, and that everything else revolved around it. To model the sky, they used a system of concentric circles called spheres, on which the planets travelled while rotating in a second set of circles called epicycles. Each planet's sphere was a different size, as was its epicycle. The result, viewed from above, was a sort of looping movement that easily explained the movement of the planets in the night sky. Let me repeat that: The Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe explained and accurately predicted the movement of the planets and stars in the night sky. In other words, it was a very successful model.
Until things started to change. The orbits of the planets are not entirely elliptical, and the Earth slowly wobbles. After some time, the model got out of kilter with the reality, so during the Middle Ages, scholars added additional epicycles until the model matched the present reality and also all past recorded evidence. Eventually, a scholar came along who suggested that a heliocentric (Sun-centered) universe might be more accurate. After a while, people discovered that the math was easier if they assumed heliocentrism, and dumped the geocentric theory.
Of course, it's not always so easy. Fact is never that easy.
Ockham's Razor doesn't determine truth. Sometimes the simpler theory is simply wrong.
References:
[1] Scott, Eugenie C. Creationism and Evolution: It's the American Way. Cell 124, February 10, 2006.
[2] Leigh, Egbert Giles, Jr. The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher, and creationism. TREE vol. 14, no 12. December 1999.
[3] Mayr, E. (1998) Preface, 1998, in The Evolutionary Synthesis (2nd edn) (Mayr, E. and Provine, W.B., eds), pp. ix–xiii, Harvard University Press
The title means, essentially, "to damn something without understanding it".
Young-earth creationism (YEC), at its core, is an application of the Protestant Bible, the first sentence of which is:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)For those who believe the Bible's text to be literally true, the subsequent genaeologies in the books of Genesis and Exodus lead to the conclusion that the world is only a few thousand years old. One bishop a few centuries ago calculated the date of creation to be 4444 BC, although most modern creationists reject that date, instead calculating the creation to have occurred anywhere between 6000 and 10000 years ago. It is impossible, they say, to know the precise date, since the genaeologies of the Hebrews are known to have holes. However, they outright reject the idea that evolutionary or geological time periods have occurred since the world came into being, disdainfully calling that fundamental concept the millions of years hypothesis.
YECs also tend to believe in a literal flood in the book of Genesis. Creationist theorists have devised a set of events, from an original flood, to a levelling of the earth, to a subsequent rapid continental shift, to explain in terms of a recent global cataclysm the geological features of the planet that appear to have been formed over millions of years. Another theory explains discrepancies in dating methods by producing examples in which they have been vastly mistaken.
YECs frequently explain the popular explanations using long time periods by pointing out that nothing in the evidence itself suggests long time periods, only our interpretation of the evidence. For instance, nothing in the fossil record suggests that layer X represents 65 million years ago while layer Y represents 250 million years ago. They are simply bones buried in rocks. An alien looking at a slab of sediment, knowing nothing about geology or paleontology, would not see vast time periods.
Our interpretation of fossil, geological, and other evidence, however, has led us to assign vast time periods to different rock layers and to use certain fossils as markers for those time periods. YECs also point out that at least one former marker critter, the Coelecanth, believed to show that rocks were 200 million years old, was found alive and well in the 20th century.
However, equivocal evidence notwithstanding, most YEC "proofs" are unscientific or even fallacious, frequently pointing not to evidence for YEC but evidence against evolution or long time periods (in their opinion).
It is important to note that not all version of creationism imply that the Earth is newly created. Many people who believe that God is the ultimate Creator do not believe that the Earth is only 6000 or 10000 or even 10 million years old. These people are called, variously, long-age creationists, old-earth creationists, progressive creationists, theistic evolutionists, and ID advocates. Intelligent design, in particular, is unique because it postulates only that an intelligence is necessary to explain some intricate biochemical features and systems.
Regardless of the truth of any sort of creationism, most scientists - religious or not - have accepted the theory of evolution by natural selection and its requisite long ages. Many Americans have also accepted the scientific reasoning behind the theory. Around the world, the theory of evolution by natural selection is considered as factual as the theory of gravity.
Scientists and science-promoting organizations have attempted to educate the public for decades by pointing out flaws in creationist reasoning and argumentation, and by presenting evolutionary biology in what they consider to be a simple layman's format. Many have been convinced by dumbed-down versions of evolutionary biology.
And yet the battle rages on. In the past six years, there have been nearly a dozen cases in which religious people have tried to insert intelligent design into state or local school curriculums, much to the chagrin of church-state separation advocates and many scientists. (Ironically, in some parts of Europe and Canada, where creationist beliefs are much less common, the government will pay for private schools which teach creationist curriculums.)
Why is this debate still raging on, almost 150 years after it began? And why does it seem to be isolated to the United States?
1. Many Americans believe that the Bible is literally or figuratively true.
This means that the text of the Bible contains true statements, including the statement that God created the universe. If one has been convinced through personal or other evidence that the Bible is true, or that God exists and influenced the Bible's authorship, it is difficult to convince such a person that something else is more true than the Bible. After all, why should mere humans be able to produce truths that are more true than the actual teachings of God? What makes humanity more qualified to say what is true than the creator of the universe?
In other countries, belief in the literal or figurative truth of the Bible is not held so dearly. Citizens of most European nations are more inclined to mix and match religious beliefs than Americans. Additionally, more of them tend to be atheists than their American counterparts at similar education levels. (In all countries, more educated people are more likely to be atheists than less educated people.)
2. Science is adaptive and fluid, and people are smart enough to recognize this.
Far from the absolute truth of religious dogma, scientific truths can change from day to day. A widely accepted theory, like the Big Bang and inflation, may be overturned by a single discovery at any time. This does not provide much security to those who feel that truths should be true. Why should they trust scientists over what they believe to the Word of God, when the scientific findings could be overturned tomorrow? Why not stick to what they "know" to be the actual truth?
Americans like their lives to be static. Their culture has evolved (?) in such a way that social changes are resisted tooth and nail by people who found older systems more comfortable. As a whole, social change in America takes place very slowly and on very small scales. In some areas, it is an entirely foreign concept. On the other hand, Europe saw enormous social change during the 20th century, leading to a much more fluid culture that can handle day-to-day changes in scientific thought.
3. Creationists phrase the battle in terms of a debate, not a scientific search
Americans are all about justice, and are fiercely independent, an artifact of their exploratory history. They love it when things are fair, when both parties get a chance to speak their minds, and when people are allowed to decide for themselves between two ideas. If one side won't let the other side speak, Americans assume that they must be hiding something. As Eugenie Scott, an avid defender of evolution, writes:
Another important reason that has enabled antievolutionism to take root is that America has a tradition of free speech, fairness, and letting everyone have their say. This admirable cultural quality is a great advantage when making political and social decisions about which opinion should be considered. It is, however, irrelevant in science. Whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth is not a matter of opinion. [1]Creationists frequently appeal to interpretation of the evidence as being separate from the evidence itself. Scientific types tend to fiercely deny this, arguing that their interpretation is backed by years of research and hundreds of other scientists. Intelligent design advocates argue that if they were only allowed to present their interpretation in the schools, students could decide which interpretation they favored based on the evidence available.
The idea of an individual decision, backed by competing interpretations, appeals to the American people, who wonder what scientists are trying to hide by restricting access to ID and creationist materials.
4. Evolution proponents often point out that other creation stories exist
People who are creationists will usually not accept the validity of other creation stories. Since they believe in the truth of the Biblical text, they will argue that while those stories are myths, while their story is the real story and should be taught. This argument should be abandoned, because it only increases the suspicion that evolution proponents consider no creation story to be true, making them functional atheists. After all, considering every creation story to be equivalently valid is only possible if one believes none of those stories, giving each an equal validity rating of zero.
To many fundamentalist Christians, there is nothing more Satanic than an atheist. Even believers in other gods are considered to be more sane than believers in no god, because at least the believers recognize what Carl Sagan called the Numinous.
5. Evolution proponents often argue that many Christians (and the Roman Catholic Church) have accepted evolution
Fundamentalist groups often consider these people to be compromisers, apostates, or sometimes not even Christians at all. Arguing that Christians have accepted evolution seems like arguing that fish have accepted that they have lungs. Since many American evangelicals will go out of their way to avoid doctrinal similarities to Catholicism, which many view as corrupt or even evil, the Pope's acceptance of evolution is damning evidence against it.
(Some evangelical theology books even insinuate that the Catholic Church is either the Beast or the Whore in the book of Revelations.)
6. Demands for evidence often turn up "evolution of the gaps"
Since the beginning, evolution has been sorely lacking for evidence, largely thanks to lack of competing explanations. As one scientist writes:
Only lack of competition could produce a synthesis where: (1) many evolutionary biologists, beginning with Huxley, failed to distinguish individual advantage from the good of the group or the species – George Williams was the first to make this distinction generally recognized; (2) many [biologists in the 1980s] wondered whether the synthesis was testable; (3) Gould claimed that selection within populations was irrelevant to macroevolution; and (4) many failed to distinguish the phenomena of evolution and adaptation from their causes. (emphasis mine) [2]Since natural selection is the only explanation for evolution, it is the one that has been attacked mostly strongly by creationists. They have argued in terms of irreducible complexity, parts that cannot function without the other parts in a whole. Evolutionary replies to these claims often argue that if events proceeded in exactly such-and-such a way, the irreducibly complex item is, in fact, reducible by natural selection. And, naturally, since creatures did evolve, and these complex items do exist, then that must actually be the way events did happen.
Since creationists don't accept the initial proposition - that creatures did evolve - and really have no philosophical reason to consider a natural explanation over their existing explanation, this argument is wholly unconvincing. Natural selection, in this case, is used in the same sense as the intelligent designer, merely becoming the stupid designer (or the "blind watchmaker", as Richard Dawkins put it). Textbooks and journal articles often state, without any reservation (or evidence), that evolution or natural selection has provided creatures or biochemical systems with a certain capability. From a natural perspective, there is no plausible alternative, since natural selection has no scientific competitor. It is only natural that, if something exists, natural selection provided it. However, a paranormal or supernatural perspective does provide several alternatives, and it would be impossible to distinguish between the two. (See point 11.)
Creationists call this "evolution-of-the gaps" in a parody of the oft-ridiculed "god-of-the-gaps". Saying that we don't know how it happened, but surely natural selection did it is frequently no more convincing and appears no less faith-based than saying that surely God did it.
In arguing for evolution, one should be content to admit that we don't know whether natural selection led to a particular development, although scientists must assume it did. Emphasizing that this is an assumption will convince many more people than making a blind assertion of faith.
7. Demands for evidence often turn up complex articles
Most creationists are not biologists. Most are not scientists. Similarly, most who accept evolution are not scientists, either, since we're talking about the American public at large.
Replying to requests for evidence by citing articles with titles like "Methylglyoxal Modification of mSin3A Links Glycolysis to Angiopoietin-2 Transcription" does not convince anybody. Only a few words in that title (modification, of, links, to) are even recognizable by laypeople. None of the concepts are comprehensible without a significant background in organic chemistry and biochemisty - two years of undergraduate study.
It would be like replying to a request for a summary of the evangelical Christian salvation message with an article title "Imminent incarnation of infinite solitude ontologically links Christ's transcendent transfiguration to the Kantian omniscient Biblical utilitarian complex".
Requests for evidence should be granted by explanations in layman's terms. The inability to describe one's views without using buzzwords often reflects a poor comprehension of the view.
8. Arguments and evidences often conflate "could" and "did"
The fact is that nobody really knows what happened in the development of life on Earth. Evolution provides us with a plausible natural explanation, provided we assume that natural selection did indeed perform the momentous feats credited to it. However, the abundance of evidence credited to evolution might more readily be called an abundance of evidence for a progressive developmental framework, in which creatures have changed over time to become more suited to their changing environment.
At the present time, evolution by natural selection is the only plausible natural developmental framework. Thus, scientists are forced to conclude that because evolution could explain the origin of species, evolution does explain the origin of species. There is simply no plausible alternative. However, those with religious viewpoints disagree, and can provide several other plausible alternatives within their supernatural framework. Arguing that all evidence for progressive development points to evolution is meaningless in this case. To those working from a supernatural framework, leaping from "could evolve" to "did evolve" is a non sequitur.
(Obviously, leaping from "could create" to "did create" is not rejected quite as strongly!)
9. Evolutionary research does not use the "standard" scientific method
Most Americans are not scientists. Therefore, when they learn the scientific method in high school, they assume forever that that is the way that scientists actually work in all cases. They feel that every scientific study should consist of a hypothesis, an experiment, results, and a conclusion. They also feel that each such experiment should be replicable by other scientists. Their views are further supported by the fact that physics and chemistry often do work that way.
However, evolution research is not largely experimental. Since most of the events being studied took place in the past, it is usually difficult, expensive, or impossible to perform a repetitive experiment demonstrating the truth of the matter and eliminating confounding factors. Even actual experiments involving, for instance, irradiating bacteria to induce mutation, do not include the same precise measurements as chemical reactions.
This lack of an experimental method makes evolutionary research seem less reliable than physical research. I can't duplicate the origin of a species in my living room, but I can slide a block down a ramp or mix two chemicals.
How can someone not committed to mechanistic explanations of evolution be convinced that natural selection of random mutations drives adaptive evolution? This problem is not easy. We cannot ‘postdict’ adaptive radiations in the same way that physicists predict movement of planets, development of stars or even (perhaps) the universe’s first three minutes. The synthesis is testable, but its tests have produced no verification as triumphant as the precise analogy between an apple’s fall and the motion of Mars. [2]In other words, yes, evolution researchers do use chemical analysis and other experimental fields in their research. In this sense, it is a forensic science, like using the chemistry of a hair to determine the culprit in a murder case.
10. Arguments often conflate "natural selection" and "evolution"
Darwin's theory is called "evolution by natural selection". As I've written numerous times, natural selection is presently the only natural explanation for evolution. Functionally, the two terms are considered identical, but semantically, they are not. Natural selection is the means by which scientists claim evolution proceeded, but it could have proceeded via other means. Evolution, on the other hand, is the theory that all life on Earth developed from a single unicellular source creature (or set of similar source creatures). So evolution is the process of biogenesis and development while natural selection is the means by which it occurred.
Creationists separate the two terms. Very few creationists would doubt or even bother questioning whether natural selection shifts the distribution of alleles in the population, or even that it drives certain alleles into extinction. This is Darwin's most obvious conclusion and humans have been using it for thousands of years in breeding crops and animals.
However, they severely criticize the assumption that small-scale natural selection can be extended to explain full-scale evolution. Most arguments on this topic are based on faulty reasoning, so it must be said that creationist arguments against this extension are largely faith-based. However, there is no good scientific reason to assume that we can make this extension, except that there is no scientific alternative.
The primary problem with the synthesis is that its makers established natural selection as the director of adaptive evolution by eliminating competing explanations, not by providing evidence that natural selection among ‘random’ mutations could, or did, account for observed adaptation. [2]
As these non-Darwinian explanations were refuted during the synthesis ... natural selection automatically became the universal explanation of evolutionary change (together with chance factors). [3, as cited in 2]11. Indistinguishability of theories
This is particularly in reference to intelligent design. The ID theory usually postulates that certain structures are too complicated to have been designed via natural selection, and so some intelligent manipulation was required to achieve those results. Sometimes, the intelligent designer is invoked without mentioning natural selection. This is not inherently a religious theory, although those who hear it inevitably replace the intelligent designer with God.
The problem with the theory is this: There is no way to distinguish it from natural selection. If an intelligent designer did manipulate ancient (or modern) DNA to produce its desired results, how would we know? Would it leave a signature in the DNA? Is there any evidence it could leave that we could not later explain with all-powerful natural selection?
So it comes back to faith: If you want to believe in an intelligent designer, you can. Nothing is stopping you, since the observed result is identical. If you don't, that's fine, too.
12. Naive theories of biology
When people who have a transformational theory of biology hear about evolution, it makes sense intuitively. One creature slowly, over successive generations, transforms into another, which transforms into another, etc. Under the transformational model, a white moth can be expected to have a slightly less white offspring, which in turn has a slightly less white offspring, until all of the moths are black.
However, this is not the theory of natural selection as stated by Darwin, and not the theory that people use today. The actual theory of natural selection states that certain traits lead to better chances of reproduction. The actual theory deals mainly with statistical predictions and observations of allele distribution within a fixed population, along with mutations adding new alleles to the set. In the allele shifting and mutation model, the white moth can have a black offspring, which has several black offspring of its own, etc.
As children, we naturally tend to develop the transformational model, and studies have shown that religious people tend to keep it throughout adulthood.
13. Scientists are not theologians, and vice versa
Scientists often have no authority to make the assertions they make about Biblical or theological topics. Christianity is probably not their area of expertise, and they often make foolish-sounding charges against Christians or religion in general. When Watson and Crick discovered DNA, they triumphantly declared the defeat of the "God hypothesis", whatever that meant. Additionally, scientists arguing against religion (or any supernatural/paranormal hypothesis) often forget that facts are true even if they are not scientifically proven. The laws of nature do not change when we discover them, and God exists (or doesn't) whether we can scientifically prove his existence or not.
Theologians, particularly law theologians, on the other hand, are not biologists. They often parrot the ideas of actual theologians without understanding, or confuse a scientific experiment with a debate. (Debates, after all, are common in their field.) They make assertions about the "theory status" of evolution without understanding the scientific definition of theory. They use arguments about moon dust that were discredited in the 1960s. Furthermore, they try to use fallacious understandings of evolution as silver bullets (such as "Why are there still monkeys?").
These arguments make each side look ridiculous to the other. Instead of sticking to research, scientists fall into the debate trap, while creationists hammer them with fallacious arguments. All in all, both sides look pretty silly to neutral observers, and each other, when the smoke clears. (Answers in Genesis, admirably, advises its followers not to use many of these ridiculous arguments.)
14. Ockham's Razor
Ockham's Razor is famously used to resolve the indistinguishability conundrum. The famous statement argues that given two theories that equally explain the available evidence, we should prefer the one which makes the fewest assumptions. In the case of intelligent design, the biggest such assumption, the elephant in the room, is the existence of such a designer. According to Ockham's Razor, we should prefer the explanation that does not require us to postulate an unknown designer (that is, natural selection).
Of course, some people's assurance in the external designer (God) is certain beyond any reasonable doubt. In that case, both theories are once again equivalent, in terms of evidence they can explain. We cannot say that natural selection did create the species, because we have an alternative. However, we cannot say that that alternative is correct, either. Ockham's Razor does not help us here.
We must in that case turn to some additional evidence - a text that claims to be an actual message from the designer, the author's signature on the world - and analyze that for authenticity. If we are convinced that the text is what it claims to be, we can use its claim that the designer did indeed create the species to choose a theory (ID).
As an example, ancient people once postulated that the earth was the center of the universe, and that everything else revolved around it. To model the sky, they used a system of concentric circles called spheres, on which the planets travelled while rotating in a second set of circles called epicycles. Each planet's sphere was a different size, as was its epicycle. The result, viewed from above, was a sort of looping movement that easily explained the movement of the planets in the night sky. Let me repeat that: The Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe explained and accurately predicted the movement of the planets and stars in the night sky. In other words, it was a very successful model.
Until things started to change. The orbits of the planets are not entirely elliptical, and the Earth slowly wobbles. After some time, the model got out of kilter with the reality, so during the Middle Ages, scholars added additional epicycles until the model matched the present reality and also all past recorded evidence. Eventually, a scholar came along who suggested that a heliocentric (Sun-centered) universe might be more accurate. After a while, people discovered that the math was easier if they assumed heliocentrism, and dumped the geocentric theory.
Of course, it's not always so easy. Fact is never that easy.
Ockham's Razor doesn't determine truth. Sometimes the simpler theory is simply wrong.
References:
[1] Scott, Eugenie C. Creationism and Evolution: It's the American Way. Cell 124, February 10, 2006.
[2] Leigh, Egbert Giles, Jr. The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher, and creationism. TREE vol. 14, no 12. December 1999.
[3] Mayr, E. (1998) Preface, 1998, in The Evolutionary Synthesis (2nd edn) (Mayr, E. and Provine, W.B., eds), pp. ix–xiii, Harvard University Press
The title means, essentially, "to damn something without understanding it".
