One Reason Evolutionists Are Losing the PR Battle

" But whatever tack they take, evolutionists should quit pretending their views are no threat to believers. This insults our intelligence, and the president is doing that already."

Yeah, Bush is definitely an insult to intelligence.

Jacob Weisberg believes that the really important issue is that some scientists are arguing that evolution and religion are incompatible. Michael Ruse believes that the problem is exactly the opposite

First, who says evolution IS losing the PR battle? Show me. The figures creep up slowly, but there are more people who understand smidgen about evolution at every contretemps. Yes, it would be good if the consciousness rose faster. But that's not losing.

But second, to the extent that we could do it better, we need to have a few consistent messages and stick to them. That's difficult to do. Even among textbooks, most of them don't bother to list the five evolution facts (as Mayr tallies them) that make the foundation of Darwin's insights plausible and nearly irrefutable. Evolution theory is left to the individual scientist to explain, and to the individual reader/citizen to figure out. Contrast this with Newton's "Laws of Motion," or the "Laws of Thermodynamics."

I recommend we pass out talking points with the five facts of evolution.

Then we need to concentrate on a few easily understood ideas. For example, to rebut "teach the controversy," we should say "teach the facts first." Who can argue with the need to have the facts first? Of course, we'll need to specify what those facts are that need to be taught, but we can do it.

We also need to bring the issue home to people so they understand it. What do I mean?

In Texas, our economy depends on evolution, and intelligent design offers only ways to muck up the economy. What do I mean? One, I mean that the eradication of the cotton boll weevil is essential to our dwindling, but still significant, cotton industry. That eradication process, led the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is based on poisoning boll weevils to eradicate them from specific regions, in doses and ways carefully calculated to avoid forcing the bugs to mutate resistance -- it takes a solid understanding of evolution to make the program work.

For a second example, Texas now loses $1.5 billion a year in crop and livestock destruction from the introduced pest, the Argentine fire ant. This pest has evolved several new defenses due to ill-thought-out eradication attempts. Now our only hope of recouping that significant loss is to understand the evolution of the beast, to delay evolved resistance to new eradication attempts. This pest now affects California, Arizona, New Mexico, and much of the southeast. National losses are probably in the $10 billion range. It would be not just folly, but sheer stupidity to abandon our efforts to control this insect -- and ALL of those efforts depend on a thorough understanding of evolution theory. Is it wrong? Let ID find a better way to fight this beast that kills farm animals, we'll let ID have a spot in the high school textbooks. But unless it can do that, quickly, ID just gets in the way and continues the losses.

Third, the Rio Grande Valley's economy depends a lot on the success of grapefruit as a crop. Need I remind you that grapefruit is a news species that didn't exist 125 years ago? But for evolution, this crop would not exist at all. Moreover, the current favorite is a variant of red grapefruit. Red grapefruit are the result of sport mutation in the late 1940s -- exactly the sort of mutation that intelligent design advocates claim is impossible. In short, the existence of the crop at all is a refutation of intelligent design. According to ID, all Texans are crazy, especially Texas farmers. But the current most popular variety, Rio Reds, were bred by scientists at Texas A&M, using evolution theory, to be resistant to the occasional hard freezes that strike the Rio Grande Valley. So, every aspect of grapefruit agriculture denies the claims of intelligent design, and is dependent on application of the evolution theory intelligent design advocates (and the Dover school board) claim are "just theory."

Fourth, Texas has a very active medical research community. The disease researchers and healers at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who work on heart disease, diabetes and other diseases, and the researchers and healers at Houston's M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, among others, all use evolution theory to fight disease.

We're talking billions of dollars at stake. These economic arguments need to be made more forcefully, more often, more clearly, and more locally. Kansas is dependent on wheat, for example -- I have a list of publications on how modern wheat farming is dependent on evolution, too. Minnesota has its own crops. California has grapes, artichokes and dairy. Every state has an agricultural, livestock and medical stake in evolution. Every state is, therefore, threatened by intelligent design.

When was the last time you saw someone argue that?

This is going to be effectively lost on Slate soon, so I think I'll re-post it here as well:

Chemistry hit divine origins concepts hard when it found that life has no vitalist spark to it. Life is physics, and more exactly, mostly chemistry, and it can easily be the result of self-ordering processes such as evolution and pre-biotic chemistry (the former is well attested, however, while the latter is not).

Indeed, this is why ID is so very lame, since instead of being able to show (or even to pretend to show) that life must have been inspirited by god, they resort presently to making god out to be a glorified engineer--and they don't even care how badly done it was, or how well "designed" human parasites are (not officially anyhow). Paley notwithstanding, the watchmaker analogy was certainly not the religious explanation for life before Newton or thereabouts. Indeed, making god out to be an engineer would have been an affront to religion prior to the triumph of mechanism.

This is why evolution isn't really the culprit in the decline of religion in people's lives and in society's operation, since ID is a very degraded religious notion. I believe this is one reason why many religions have sought compatibility (however well they succeeded) with science, and especially evolution, for they didn't wish to cast God into a very human mold, that of designer or engineer, rather they have held to the universe as being ultimately a miracle of god, and some will claim this the "soul" is as well (though the latter, too, conflicts with scientific theory and practice).

IDists will often not claim the "designer" to be god, partly in order to obscure their true motives, and partly because on some level they realize that if it's all just "design", an alien could very well be the "designer" rather than god. ID is sort of a synthesis of religion and science fiction, with gods and aliens being interchangeable "superior beings" in this pathetic attempt to make religion comport with the Newtonian conceptions of science found in the majority of IDists/creationists, notably Behe and Dembski.

It's religion without anything really special about god. No longer do we have "he spake and it was done", rather it's god the supreme biomolecular engineer. Indeed, we might someday become such gods, though I'm hardly striving for something so mundane (evolution is more interesting and serendipitous in its "inventions").

William Saletan is thus incorrect in thinking that ID is on the way to actual science, for the IDists have a secular religion which is stuck in pre-20th century physics and the command and control structures of the industrial age. While some who have accepted ID may indeed learn beyond this scientific throwback, most are there now because they have not come to terms with dynamic processes and the abundant evidences left behind by such evolutionary processes. If they don't believe in the god who spoke, they still adhere to the god who calculated and invented, something that fits with Behe's conceptions of organic chemistry, and with Dembski's conceptions of languages (note that the buffoon thinks alien signals would be the result of "intelligent design" and not of the evolution of language and of conceptions--though there are alien designs that could be identified rather directly. The point being that it really doesn't matter if the complex meanings are evolved or designed just because they are complex and meaningful) and of organisms.

Oh, god is dead in their "religion", they just don't know the difference between a living god and their dead one. The ancient religions with their spirituality are hardly likely to trouble science, rather it is the mechanistic evolutions out of once-spiritual religions that menace science. After all, only something as materialistic as "Intelligent Design" could actually threaten something rather less materialistic, the modern conception of evolution as being dynamic, relational, and "idiosyncratic" in its effects. It's the old physics against the new, while the ancient notions of inspirited life play no part in the "controversy".

Evolution is indeed incompatible with certain types of religion; those that make specific incorrect claims about the natural world. This does not mean that evolution is incompatible with religion in general.

Any religion that requires adherents to deny reality is not worth believing in.

But then, since I'm an atheist I consider all religions to be not worth believing in.

Anyone who allows themselves to be described as a "pundit" without immediately trying to change their name should be shot out of mercy. As if being described as an "expert" in the popular press hadn't taught anyone anything.

That evolution and religion are compatible can be confirmed with a glance at one of several books by no less a Christian than C.S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain, for example, has a lengthy explaination of the Fall story in light of evolution. In short, Lewis believed that biological humans emerged through gradual change, and were then given souls. And he's probably the most respected theologian of the last century, often cited favorably by fundamentalists.

But then, since I'm an atheist I consider all religions to be not worth believing in.

If science is a variety of religion, then the Model T was a breed of horse.

The ancient religions with their spirituality are hardly likely to trouble science, rather it is the mechanistic evolutions out of once-spiritual religions that menace science.

Unless said Rabbi/Priest/Minister believes God declared the 1/3 of the Earth's population descended from Ham deserves to be slaves of the descendents of Shem (see Genisis).

Anyone convinced of the infallibility of any human doccument is a bad source of advice on any topic.

Unless said Rabbi/Priest/Minister believes God declared the 1/3 of the Earth's population descended from Ham deserves to be slaves of the descendents of Shem (see Genisis).

Anyone convinced of the infallibility of any human doccument is a bad source of advice on any topic.

As some may know, Ruse had a bit of a dustup years ago with Laudan on more or the less the same point. Laudan's argument was the creation science actually did engage in testing hypotheses. The real problem, in Laudan's view was that creation science had effectively been falsified-at least as much as anything can be falsified.

Ruse objected to this. He argued that evolution was science since it engaged in falsifiable hypothesis formation and revised its theories accordingly. He argued that creation science did not. Hence Ruse, following Popper, drew the bright line of demarcation.

Ruse, writing on 19th century evolutionists views them as a group of metaphysical philosophers who got rescued by the synthesis. In Ruse's view, it's not until the synthesis that you get real science.

Enter Dawkins, et. al. who have become prominent spokespeople for "Darwinism" and Ruse sees a group of people confusing metaphysics with the actual science. Thus to Ruse's point of view, metaphysics and science are logically separable entities. Now Ruse is not denying that scientists have a priori committments or work in paradigms, he's just saying that scientists should try to distinguish between their testable hypotheses and their metaphysical committments. He thinks that Dennett,Dawkins and Wilson are not doing so, to the detriment of science.

I think Ruse has a point. To the extent that Dennett, Dawkins, Wilson propose Darwinism as an all encompassing ontology, they are promoting Darwinism as a comprehensive world view that is on a collision course with other comprehensive world views.

I think Ruse should now recognize that Laudan actually was on the right track. It makes a lot more sense to see science as a problem solving enterprise, albeit one guided by general ontologies. But trying to draw a hard and fast line of demarcation doesn't work.

That makes the case against ID and Creation Science more direct. They are just failed research traditions.

Thinking about Ed's post. It would be pretty spiffy if a Texas proevolution group could put together tv commercials mentioning this to the layman.

"We are in the cotton industry, fighting the Boll Weevil.
We are fighting the Argentine Fire Ant.
We are Rio Grande Valley's grapefruit farmers.
We are disease researchers at the Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who work on heart disease, diabetes and other diseases.
What do we have in common? Our success depends on understanding evolution. Evolution is a tool for understanding these problems, and solving them.
Support farmers, ranchers, and doctors. Support evolution."

The creationists run million-dollar PR campaigns. We should too.

Russell-

Thank you for pointing out my careless phrasing. The error has been corrected.

Ed: Texas owes a lot more of its economy to oil & gas than to cotton & grapefruit, and Texans know it.

Remind 'em that geologists use the same science for fossil fuels that paleontologists use for fossils. Oil drillers don't look for places where dinosaurs' bodies were deposited and covered by a flood 4,000 years ago.

Chip:

>>
To the extent that Dennett, Dawkins, Wilson propose Darwinism as an all encompassing ontology, they are promoting Darwinism as a comprehensive world view that is on a collision course with other comprehensive world views.
<<

(Pls pardon the amateur "quotes" - I'm not fluent in xml.)

DD&W et al propose science as an all-encompassing ontology, not whatever is meant by "Darwinism". The scientific method and the mental habits that come with it are, apparently, unique, and are bound to conflict with the methods & mentalities of Authority, Tradition, Popular Opinion, etc. This conflict need not be to-the-death, but friction is inevitable, at least until a generation after full science education takes effect.

Actually a surprising number of creationist advocates are/were drillers... maybe they changed careers because they weren't hitting much? :)

Pierce,

I think they are missing the point and confusing issues.

Darwinism(or really more appropriately Neo-Darwinism) has a very specific and precise meaning. Why do people waste time denying its power and importance as a research tradition (or if you prefer, paradigm)?

My problem with Dennett, Dawkins and wilson is that they confuse the general ontology of Neo-Darwinism with the testable postulates of Darwinism. Dawkins and Wilson both do good science, but in their popular writings they present the philosophical positions of Darwinism as unifying principles for all knowledge. They also confuse reductionism with scientific method, though Wilson does admit that emergence is a possibility.

Materialism is a method that I accept because it works out and the alternative, that evil demons are deceiving me, seems untenable.

At an ontological level, both generic creationism and materialism can coexist. See Dobzhansky's famous 1973 article "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in Light of Evolution" or his "Biology of Ultimate Concern" for a defense of this position. IT is only when creationism leads you into making specific statements that are easily discredited through valid means of generating warranted claims to knowledge, that materialism has any claim over other world views.

Well, in my opinion, the article is a pack of lies.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no conflict at all between science and my religion.

Some people agree with me.

http://www.mindandlife.org/hhdl.science_section.html

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp

As far as I'm concerned, conceding this point to the creationists (as the Slate author of this trash does, whatever "side" he supposedly "supports") is not just illogical. It also demonstrates, without meaning to be insulting, a rather narrow, unsophisticated, and poorly informed view of human history, psychology, and indeed, human evolution, for that matter.

And it's the dumbest strategic position anyone could take. Essentially, insisting that the public make a painful choice that they don't really have to make. No wonder creationists and their supporters keep pushing this crap.

I swear, if you went to whatever you consider the most "rational" country on earth, Netherlands or whatever, and set the issue in these terms, science would lose. And it's just a cheap phoney trap that the creationist branch of the right wing political movement in the US has set for scientists.

I'll finish this post with one request - and no expectations of having it granted - if you agree with the creationists that this should be a battle between "atheism and religion", and that the theory of evolution "disproves religon"...

Please define "religion". And then discuss the experimental approach you plan to take to "disprove all religion". Let me repeat that for emphasis. If you claim that creationists are right, and we must have a battle between science education and "any or all religion", DEFINE "RELIGION". And show a planned experimental approach to "disprove all religion". Like Lenny Flank, I won't hold my breath.

No doubt I'll be heavily criticized, eggregiously insulted, and possibly banned for this post. The creationists (most of whom don't even believe in their own crap, but merely wish to claim that the Christian God supports policies that violate the teachings of Jesus and the Ten Commandments, in order to jam those policies down the throats of the public) have set a trap. And some people seem to wish, not merely to step in the trap, but to dive into it like a base runner sliding into home plate. So be it. Slide away.

I have to go with Ed here. I don't think evolution is losing the PR battle. Look at it this way:
- the overall number of people who reject the scientific evidence for evolution not any higher than in the past, in fact it's slightly lower;
- among the people with a reasonable level of education, who were exposed to decent biology teaching, acceptance of evolution is at an all-time high;
- Creationism has to purposefully disguise itself in order to make itself presentable (some movement flankers have sued the NCSE for having associated them with Creationist material (!));
- with the advent of genomics, evolutionary biology is becoming increasingly economically important, and comparative genomics is one of the fastest-growing biotech fields, from huge companies like Celera, to smaller ones like this one. Also check out the program of the 12th European Biotech meeting). Graduates with good grounding in evolutionary biology and bioinformatics are going to be increasingly sought after in the private sector.

The current uproar about ID creationism is just due to the periodic regurgitations from the fundamentalist movement and a favorable political climate. But political climates change every decade or so, and there is no way ID is going to ride the religious right-wing wave long enough to actually force itself into academia, especially since they are not actually accomplishing anything of substance, and in fact keep embarassing themselves trying to do actual science.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't resist the attempts to introduce religiously motivated anti-evolution and anti-science strategies and notions in schools - we should care about our kids' education. But panic is really unwarranted.

Steve, you're right -- heckuvan ad.

Pierce, you're right, too -- and ironically, the anti-science side is financed on the results of oil money, a lot. Ide Trotter, Jr., uses his money to fund a pro-ID, anti-evolution bunch (he was the force that got Dembski named to give half the Ide Trotter Lecture at Texas A&M a while back -- named after his Exxon-employee father). Geology is one step removed from actual practical evolution application, too. For those two reasons, I left it out.

"Please define "religion". And then discuss the experimental approach you plan to take to "disprove all religion". Let me repeat that for emphasis. If you claim that creationists are right, and we must have a battle between science education and "any or all religion", DEFINE "RELIGION". And show a planned experimental approach to "disprove all religion". Like Lenny Flank, I won't hold my breath."

See Pascal Boyer, _Religion Explained_. But "disproving all religion" doesn't make sense given his answer... the central basis of religion is not a set of propositions, it's a set of practices (inferential and behavioral). Doctrine and dogma develop to explain the inferences and behaviors.

Precedent is what's frightening. Determining science by politics is a recipe for third world status.

Ask Trofim Lysenko.... *facefaults*

No doubt I'll be heavily criticized, eggregiously insulted, and possibly banned for this post.

— Harold

Honestly, what does it get our side to claim that evolution is inconsistent with religion?

If you're an athiest, that's fine. But don't insist that you must be an athiest to be rational, or to understand the value and power of science.

You don't have to say that all religion is wrong in order to argue the position that religions that deny evolution are wrong. The latter is the point we need to make.

Once upon a time, one of the purposes of religion was as a poor excuse for science. Don't know why the Sun rises and sets? It's Apollo's chariot, carrying it across the sky. Well, naturalism has done a remarkable job of explaining how the world works. No, it doesn't understand everything, but it's understanding more all the time. Trying to pin your religion on what we don't currently understand is setting your religion up for future irrelevance (and insane conflicts like Galileo faced, or that evolution is facing today). This is the old "God of the gaps" kind of religion-- and it's clear to anybody who knows what science has done in the last few centuries that this kind of religion is no good.

But that's not all there is to religion. Not at all. Please, people, try not to drive away the open-minded religious types who are able and indeed eager to understand and accept science. By insisting that all of religion is of the poor substitute of science variety, you're playing right into the hands of the creationists-- who want to substitute their religion for science, and who want to harness the legions of the religious as allies in their cultural war against science. Don't ceed the point to them.

Religion which does not try to substitute for science-- science says nothing about. You don't have to believe it, but please don't insist that evolution is inconsistent with it, 'cause that's not only false, it's not going to do anybody any good.

-Rob

"Religion which does not try to substitute for science--- science says nothing about. You don't have to believe it, but please don't insist that evolution is inconsistent with it, 'cause that's not only false, it's not going to do anybody any good."

I disagree with your first sentence--religion as it exists is certainly a subject that science can study. I agree with your second sentence--not only is religion not inconsistent with evolution, religion itself evolves, as demonstrated by the ever-changing diversity and distribution of religious beliefs and practices. Even the firmest advocate of any particular religion must admit that the evidence shows this of everybody else's religion...

I agree with Ed, my approach has been to keep it simple, keep it personal, keep it direct.

Ed has now been immortalized at Uncommon Descent

They are such cowards, they can't be bothered addressing Ed Darrel over here and instead have to do it over at Dembskis blog, where any counter arguments can be silenced by him so they look good for having no 'opposition' to anyone who stumbles along.

Tsk tsk.

I agree that both ID and fundamentalism in general are part of a larger short-lived political climate that will eventually change, and probably won't last more than a decade or two at most. However, what concerns me is that history has recorded many short-lived political movements, now widely discredited, which managed to do much damage before they burned out. My hope is that unlike, say, Communism, this political climate won't require a disaster on the scale of the failed "Great Leap Forward" to show it to be untenable.

On the other hand, it bears an uncanny resemblance to the Nationalism of the first half of the last century, which was responsible for two world wars before people recognized that national pride doesn't bring dead soldiers back to life.

The bigger danger with ID is that it is a symptom of a larger trend of societal apathy and willful ignorance. The world is changing rapidly, and this engenders fear in many people. For these people, their natural response is to place their trust in their leaders through blind faith and simplistic thinking. Even incompetent leadership can survive in such a climate - in fact it is often better in such a climate - because the populace is more willing to believe what their leaders tell them than face uncomfortable truths.

It's the same instinct that causes certain animals to stick with the herd when threatened, regardless of where the herd itself is heading. Defeating ID won't just require education and facts, the most important job is defusing the herd mentality itself and assuaging the fear that drives it.

As a result [of relativity and quantum mechanics], many scientists came to see common sense as an impediment to progress not only in physics but also in other fields. "What, after all, have we to show for ... common sense," the behaviorist B. F. Skinner asked, "or the insights gained through personal experience?" Elevating this outlook to the status of dogma, the British biologist Lewis Wolpert declared in his influential 1992 book "The Unnatural Nature of Science," "I would almost contend that if something fits in with common sense it almost certainly isn't science." Dr. Wolpert's view is widely shared. When I invoke common sense to defend or - more often - criticize a theory, scientists invariably roll their eyes.

— John Horgan

Scientists' contempt for common sense has two unfortunate implications. One is that preposterousness, far from being a problem for a theory, is a measure of its profundity; hence the appeal, perhaps, of dubious propositions like multiple-personality disorders and multiple-universe theories. The other, even more insidious implication is that only scientists are really qualified to judge the work of other scientists. Needless to say, I reject that position, and not only because I'm a science journalist (who majored in English). I have also found common sense - ordinary, nonspecialized knowledge and judgment - to be indispensable for judging scientists' pronouncements, even, or especially, in the most esoteric fields.

why on earth his nutty rant is on the New York Times editorial page?

I have read Bill Dempski's comments on Ed Darrell's piece above.

I am interested in the five key facts which biologists need to teach which will clarify the issue.

Can someone point me in the right direction to find them?

In this debate definitions of key terms are crucial. Even most intelligent YEC's do not deny the reality and usefulness of micro-evolution. Even they would agree that there are real facts here. YEC's, Long earth creationists and ID peeps argue that it is in the area of macro-evolution that we are struggling with materialistic explanations. Are evolutionists happy with the distinction between macro- and micro- evolution? Is it a helpful distinction? My understanding is that micro-evolution will cover things like bug antibiotic resistance, sickle cell anaemia and Ed Darrell's examples. Macro- evolution covers issues like the origin of the first membrane bound living organism, the generation of morphological novelty, the generation of radically new devolopemental structures and body plans and the development of human consciousness.

The bacterial flagellum would then be somewhere at the edge of macro-evolution and Behe's irreducibly complex structures would be right on the edge of the macro-evolution border.

I am interested in this business of Ruse vs Dawkin's, Dennet & Wilson and their views of whether evolution results in atheism.

I am interested in whether a scientist must be a materialist and exclude totally the possibility of all higher causation.

1. Does the belief in the possibility of unusual miracles disqualify a person from being a scientist? Is this official?
2. To do science or think in a scientific way must a scientist exclude completely the possibility of the reality of any higher personal beings (whether they be God, gods, angels, demons, ghosts, or superintelligent extraterrestrial influences)for example is SETI scientific?

About enshrinement at Dembski's blog

Ironic. Dembski won't accept my comments there. I don't think he can stand the discussion on a practical level (among other things, he's never been able to explain why he picked the electronic model of communication, since life is something quite different from a signal in a wire; he really hates that question).

It's also interesting to see Dembksi's attempt at ridicule and the comments. Apparenly no one over on the ID side knows the explanation of evolution that lays it out as five facts. They can't quibble with them if they don't know them. That's a key reason that I think we need to drill 'em on those points.

(Another reason is that the facts of evolution appeal to hunters, who want to make sure the white tail and mule deer population is healthy enough to hunt -- not to mention ducks. Intelligent design can find no solace with Ducks Unlimited; regardless your view on duck hunting, DU members have a vested interest in making sure wildlife managers know about evolution, and they're willing to put out money for it).

Rob Knop makes some good points. However, from a perspective of trying to win friends and influence people Norman Vincent Peale would be comfortable with, I think we do a lot better to deny that we have it in for anyone of faith. The reality is that creationism is anathema to more Christians than evolution is (creationism ultimately implies a great deal of deceit on the part of the creator, which is an intractable theological problem for creationism). Darwin was Christian (his entire life, I argue, but let's leave that argument; there is no contest that he was a fundamentalist, 6-day-creation Christian when he set out around the world with the assigned task of proving, scientifically, Genesis 1). It's just that when Darwin assembled all the evidence God's creation presented, his pre-ordained conclusion was not warranted. Rather than be dishonest, Darwin helped invent modern science and admitted that he'd found evolution. Wallace was Christian. Asa Gray was Christian. Even the dinosaur-finding critics of evolution were Christian. Most of the great evolution theorists of the early 20th century were Christian. Many evolution students are people of faith today. With very, very few exceptions, evolution students tend to be people of outstanding moral strength and uprightness. We should never concede that fact to any contrary claim.

It's not about a fight between science and faith. It's a question of ethics: Will we be honest about telling the lay public what scientists find, or will we fib to enhance the broadcasts of D. James Kennedy?

I was raised a Boy Scout (before the current flaps, but real values endure momentary fits of insanity at the top): Be honest first. As Twain noted, that requires less memory; you don't have to remember the lies to keep them straight.

Evolution is a natural extension of Christian curiosity about the world. Creationism is an invented contretemps designed to market a different theology.

We win nothing by conceding the churches to those who fib, especially those who fib and don't admit it, or worse, don't know it.

Ed Darrell wrote: "First, who says evolution IS losing the PR battle? Show me."

In a recent report I have seen poll numbers virtually unchanged over 23 years. If we had the luxury of conducting 2 control experiments, in which "evolutionists" and anti-evolutionists were silenced, respectively, over the years, we'd know for sure which side is better at PR. But then I hear people who can't even spell "abiogenesis" let alone tell it apart from evolution, mindlessly parroting the standard anti-evolution sound bites, and I can't help thinking that we're losing.

For Mr. Rowell:

5 Facts of Evolution

Evolution theory is five observations, or facts, and three reasonable inferences drawn from them.

These are the facts of evolution which creationists must deny to falsify evolution.

Observation 1: Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.

Observation 2: Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.

Observation 3. Food resources are limited, and are constant most of the time.

Inference A: In such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.

Observation 4: No two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant.

Observation 5: Much of this variation is heritable.

Inference B: In a world of stable populations where each individual must struggle to survive, those with the "best" characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring. This is natural selection.

Inference C: Natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species.

I cribbed these from Ernst Mayr's 1982 book, The Growth of Biological Thought, and from Donald Johanson and Maitland A. Edey in Blueprints. I like the formulation because it tends to make a lot of sense to hunters, conservationists, and anyone who really pays attention to environmental issues. Carrying capacity is something that intelligent design formulators rarely want to discuss -- I don't think they can explain it.

Many of us don't like distinctions betwee "micro" and "macro" evolution, because the mechanisms are exactly the same, and the line between the two is almost completely arbitrary. Generally we say "macro" is speciation -- but speciation is apparent, usually, only in hindsight (the spectacular rise of Spartina townsendii is an exception, and there are others). Some of us suspect that speciation events occur with some regularity, but are apparent only after one of the populations gets another set of mutations that makes the differences apparent, the second set of mutations having little or nothing to do with speciation (but see the article on butterfly wing markings by Lukhtanov, et al., in the July 21 Nature).

Simply put, there is no mechanism that stops "micro" from becoming "macro," and if those two are to be distinguished, somebody's got to propose just exactly such a barrier mechanism. Since creationists of all stripes are allergic to lab and field work, it is unlikely that any creationist could ever propose how to distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution. It's the same stuff.

Cell "membranes" are easily formed chemically -- see Sidney Fox's work, and that of others in the astrobiology field. It's not a serious problem in the end, and it's no problem at all for Darwinian theory, which starts with the first replicating cell (membrane already included). But "micro" evolution can't cover observed cases of speciation, broccoli, radishes, modern bovines, modern porcines, maize, wheat, ring species, American apple maggots, and dozens of other examples.

Others can deal with these issues, and your other issues, better than I.

No, scientists don't have to disbelieve in miracles, or their possibility. But scientists must stop claiming miracles when a perfectly workable and replicable explanation covers the event instead. That's the real distinction between scientists and anti-scientists. Modern air travel would have had all the appearances of a miracle, prior to about 125 years ago. But don't tell the nun in the seat ahead of you to stop praying to hold the airplane up. It won't make her or you any happier.

Tim wrote: "This guy sounds an awful lot like the creationists in his contempt for modern science."

IIRC, Horgan is the author of "The End of Science." If so, I read that his problem with evolution was not that there was anything wrong with it, but that it is so successful that there's nothing left to discover about it.

Thank you Ed!

Do you distinguish between more and less complex biological entities? These (as selectable traits) require several independent proteins for minimal function.

Is the following question a legitimate one for biologists?

"Do improvements (ie some of the adaptations we observe) in some cases require concerted/coordinated change rather than entirely independent random events?"

My point about the cell membrane is not that the membrane is difficult to make but that it is difficult to see how all the right bits got inside all together at the same time to make the first membrane bound living unit. That event is surely of a different order of magnitude than the ones that you list.... and it does not help to pretend otherwise.

to make the first membrane bound living unit

SEF
I am sure that I care about the difference. Apologies for my ignorance I make no claims to being an expert on this....Is abiogenesis totally distinguished from evolution or is it part of it...

This was really my point that confusion results from the elasticity of the word evolution which seems to mean different things to different people at different times.

So... does evolution include all the changes in all the different life forms on the planet but excludes abiogenesis? In the popular mind I would think that abiogenesis would be part of the "evolution explanation" of life.

The UK A-level text that I used to use includes abiogenesis as a "major step in evolution" so it is not just me who is confused. Is it wrong to talk about "major steps" in evolution...?

It would only really be correct to include abiogenesis as a major step in evolution if the big bang, element formation, star formation, compound formation and planet formation were also included as major steps! IE you have to be talking about the wider concept rather than the narrower one intended by most biologists and outlined in Origin of Species.

It will certainly be a major step in (bio)chemistry though if it is ever possible to narrow down with evidence the particular path of abiogenesis which happened to be taken on Earth from all the available paths. Best betting is currently on RNA being more important than DNA. Also that the catalytic activity of even single amino acids as well as small peptides was significant rather than just the much larger proteins.

Honestly, what does it get our side to claim that evolution is inconsistent with religion?

Andrew Rowell -

"1. Does the belief in the possibility of unusual miracles disqualify a person from being a scientist? Is this official?
2. To do science or think in a scientific way must a scientist exclude completely the possibility of the reality of any higher personal beings (whether they be God, gods, angels, demons, ghosts, or superintelligent extraterrestrial influences)for example is SETI scientific?"

Anyone knows that there is no "official" position on whether or not someone is a "scientist", and that some prominent scientists are and have been religious (on a spectrum, ranging from orthodox positions like Catholicism to the less orthodox, like Einstein's spirtuality). There are plenty of scientists who conjecture the existence of extraterrestrial life, some religious, some not.

But you already knew that. Your implication is that anyone who rejects Dembski's ID "must" also reject these other, unrelated ideas. Or conversely, that anyone who is religious or believes in the possibility of extraterrestrial life is obliged to accept ID. I profoundly disagree.

"In this debate definitions of key terms are crucial. Even most intelligent YEC's do not deny the reality and usefulness of micro-evolution. Even they would agree that there are real facts here. YEC's, Long earth creationists and ID peeps argue that it is in the area of macro-evolution that we are struggling with materialistic explanations. Are evolutionists happy with the distinction between macro- and micro- evolution? Is it a helpful distinction? My understanding is that micro-evolution will cover things like bug antibiotic resistance, sickle cell anaemia and Ed Darrell's examples. Macro- evolution covers issues like the origin of the first membrane bound living organism, the generation of morphological novelty, the generation of radically new devolopemental structures and body plans and the development of human consciousness. The bacterial flagellum would then be somewhere at the edge of macro-evolution and Behe's irreducibly complex structures would be right on the edge of the macro-evolution border."

You say you want to define terms, but you offer no way of differentiating between "macroevolution" and "microevolution"; rather, you declare some arbitrary examples. One of them (origin of membrane bound cells) is not even an example of evolution. A theory of abiogenesis would be nice, and would complement and extend the theory of evolution, but properly speaking, the theory of evolution applies to cellular life and post-cellular life (such as viruses).

When scientists rarely use the terms "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, as a few British biologists do, or have in the past, they refer to a difference in degree of evolution from a common ancestor, not a difference in mechanism. Most scientists don't like the terms.

I'll close with a few questions -

1. Can you explain the theory of evolution fairly? I know someone has already offered a pretty good explanation, but even so, can you?
2. Can YOU define "microevolution" and "macroevolution" in a way that allows ME to differentiate one from the other consistently? Is the long ear of rabbits and hares an example of "microevolution" or "macroevolution", for example? Don't just give the answer, explain how you got the answer.
3. You say that some people are "struggling with materialistic explanations". Should scientists look for "non-materialistic explanations", and if so, HOW? Would that merely mean that scientists should give up on problems and declare that there is "no material explanation"? If not, how can "non-materialistic explanations" be scientifically tested and reproduced?
4. Lastly, can you explain ID? I'm confused by it. I need more details. WHAT IS THE ID EXPLANATION OF THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM, for example? In as much detail as possible, how was it "designed", who designed it, when, and why? Please explain how we can test your explanations. The experiments need not be practical, they need only be hypothetically possible.

On "common sense" and science:

I think that the best description of the scientific method is "applied common sense."

Maybe it's from years of training as a scientist. However, for me, it's common sense to do things like make sure you have multiple supporting data sets, to look for sources of systematic error, etc. etc. etc.

Things like quantum mechanics and relativity show us that on the most fundamental level, the world doesn't work the way that we might intuitively expect it to. That's because our intuition evolved to serve us on time scales of seconds to years, on length scales of centimeters to hundreds of meters, and on mass scales of kilograms to hundreds of kilograms. Even there, our intuition doesn't always serve us; the full implications of intertia aren't fully intuitive, because our brains evolved to deal with a situation where there's always air resistance, and where there is usually friction. But they do serve us pretty well. There was no need for us to have a natural intuition for things moving near the speed of light or operating on spatial scales of 10^-10 m.

But common sense-- common sense and what we have a natural intuition for are two different things. The scientific method just is applied common sense. Look back at the whole "n-rays" affair; the common sense involved in realizing that you needed some kind of double-blind experiment is what was needed to get rid of that.

-Rob

Hi Lenny,

Could you clarify what you mean by "ideological atheists" for me please.

I don't see how an atheist is in anyway similar to a fundamentalist theist, unless you are referring to an equally fundamentalist strong atheist of course, in which case I understand completely. If this is the case, could you please amend your comment in future to note the difference. Ta!

For lurker benefit:

I seem to see this sort of thing a great deal at the moment. Atheism is (for want of a better term) a broad church (oh the trouble I'll get in for THAT little joke!). Atheism is expressedly not only the "strong atheist" belief that god or gods do not exist. There are other forms of atheism, most importantly "weak atheism" which makes no such claim. Furthermore weak atheism is not a religious opinion but an opinion about certain religious claims, the difference is key and relatively subtle. Simply put, strong atheism is a belief of lack, whilst weak atheism is a lack of belief. Not to be confused of course with agnosticism which is a belief that the existence/lack of existence of god/s is unknowable.

As for evolution and religion, evolutionary biology absolutely IS inconsistent with SOME religious claims. It really depends on the details of the religious claim. The claim that all organisms poofed into existence in their modern forms (which SOME assert on the basis of religion) is in direct conflict with evolutionary biology. As I have said before, the conflict isn't one between evolution and christinanity (spelling mistake deliberate), it's between faith and reason as mechanisms of acquiring knowledge. Reason won a long time ago. That of course says nothing about faith in the realm of the mind. Deists and their fine furry ilk are perfectly in tune with all manner of reasoned thought. As indeed are various denominations of buddhists and taoists etc. There is no NECESSARY conflict between science and religion, between reason and faith, as long as one appreciates that evidence trumps fancy. It's ain't complicated!

SEF - "It would only really be correct to include abiogenesis as a major step in evolution if the big bang, element formation, star formation, compound formation and planet formation were also included as major steps!"

You stick it to them! Also, evolution can't explain art or ghosts or people speaking tongues in church.

*rolls eyes*

Many of us don't like distinctions between "micro" and "macro" evolution, because the mechanisms are exactly the same, and the line between the two is almost completely arbitrary.

Need I remind you that grapefruit is a news species that didn't exist 125 years ago?

— Ed Darrell

The fact that ID's terms are too broad and ambiguous should be one of our main talking points, in the simple sense that Ed Darrell outlined.

BTW, Ed's comments make more sense than anything I've seen for a while on PT. I have been looking to PT to come up with just such a structure to help us students and laypeople deal with all the nonsense. Not that I don't understand the discussions here, but it helps to have them boiled down, and for everyone to come to a consensus that is simply put and widely usable. And if PT wants to hire a PR firm to help out, I would be more than happy to make a small donation to that end, and if others would too, it would make a neat pile.

The most important PR issue we need to address is NOT a scientific one! We all need to be united in saying that evolution is not incompatible with most religious beliefs.

The science already supports evolution, but people don't really seem to care, amazingly. I don't understand why that is, but it's true, they just won't take the time to think it through. But for these lazy-minded people, Ed's proposal is the answer.

One PR weakness for ID folk is that they are not united. We can be united and stop quibbling over the small stuff.

I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. PZ Myers

I say, their pastries have a bad taste. It's time for scientists to break out the aprons and mixing bowels, and get out there with a better cake.

There is not nor cannot be the conflict between ANYTHING and belief in a god. But if one wishes to believe in the gods of revealed religion, evolution is indeed utterly toxic to that belief. The only way to harmonize science and the Bible, for example, is to water both down in a way that makes the Genesis flood look like a Mr. Turtle Pool.

"The only way to harmonize science and the Bible, for example, is to water both down in a way that makes the Genesis flood look like a Mr. Turtle Pool."

Greg, it is comments like these that can indeed lose the PR battle. What do you think it gains to make such a claim? It's not even true.

Flint,

I see your point. My point is that there are common examples of evolution that most people encounter every day, and we need to make people aware of them. One cannot stroll through the produce section of a supermarket without encountering more examples of "macro" evolution than creationists think necessary to get from "dead chemicals" to "Grateful Dead."

You're right: Creationists, especially the ID variety, are deucedly difficult to pin down on definitions. Sometimes when I meet with creationists -- I have a fun, on-again/off-again conversation with a local minister who writes a weekly column for our paper -- sometimes I order a salad, and I try to manipulate it around to get a radish, a chunk of broccoli, and honey-mustard dressing. It's easy enough to do at a salad bar in Texas.

At some point I ask them to take a stand on whether the broccoli is the same species as the radish. They always answer that they are different species. Then I point out that we know the origins of both "species" and their many varieties, and that both are descended (with great modifications, of course) from the an ancestor of the mustard from which the dressing is made. Sometimes they argue that the species will "revert" from the variations I mention. I ask them to plant some in their garden and see if they can get them to revert as a demonstration, to put their garden-variety science research where their claim is (and my mouth literally is). I point out that reversion only makes the point about variation -- it doesn't happen in one generation, and often it can't happen at all.

I suspect one could get some cross pollination; but the point is made (I've never had anyone bother to plant the stuff). The seed I really want to plant is planted: Every time they get these vegetables, they're going to think about variation and mutations and just how much we really do know about evolution, and how it really affects us every day.

It is a good aphorism to recall that we cannot reason a man out of a position he didn't get to by reason -- but the reality is that we can change minds. There are no creationists in the infectious disease or cancer wards, when it comes time to refuse the treatments created by evolution. I hope to make earlier conversions, and there are small successes to demonstrate it can be done.

Ed Darrell, I love your comments on this thread. You rock.

Thanks for the correction, Zen Faulkes. Your source also says the sport mutation that turned them red occurred in 1906, not the 1940s.

We are all ignorant of some things, and in my case my ignorance is vast. I wish I could have found that site you got in my earliest searches. It's got some good stuff.

Among other things, note that we can trace the origins of some of the varieties of the fruit very carefully. Notice that botanists and agriculurists kept very good records hundreds of years ago. There are ample examples of evolution for anyone interested to find. Some of them are older than we thought.

Unlike creationists, I will now correct my future statements to reflect new knowledge. I am hopeful that models will affect them even when they resist.

Kevin Rowell -

"I am sure that I care about the difference. Apologies for my ignorance
I make no claims to being an expert on this....Is abiogenesis totally
distinguished from evolution or is it part of it..."

It is in a different category, not really a theory. What mechanisms are known about
abiogenesis vs. evolution? In abiogenesis, we have some general ideas of required
chemical properties, and chemical structures that lead to them, but no
comprehensive detailed picture. Evolution, on the other hand, is for organisms
that use DNA replication and transcription, etc. Also, it is based on what we
observe in extant, organisms about development, structure, ecology, etc.
And matches the fossil record to boot. And the DNA of today over all organisms
preserves historical information. For example, your DNA came from
your mother and father (hopefully, instead of from the mailman), and we can
tell that you came from them without having seen the particular act).
Abiogenesis, the early evidence is really obscured.

"This was really my point that confusion results from the elasticity of the word
evolution which seems to mean different things to different people at different times."

True enough. But if you can't tell which meaning a person is using, ask.
If they can't make it clear, they are not worth corresponding with.

"So... does evolution include all the changes in all the different life forms
on the planet but excludes abiogenesis? In the popular mind I would think that
abiogenesis would be part of the "evolution explanation" of life."

It is, because you can't have evolution without replicating organisms,
and they had to come from somewhere, wouldn't you agree?
However, abiogensis is certainly acknowledged to be much less certain.
It is not even certain that abiogenesis took place on earth, even!

"The UK A-level text that I used to use includes abiogenesis as
a "major step in evolution" so it is not just me who is confused.
Is it wrong to talk about "major steps" in evolution...?"

Do you think you could provide an answer consistent with what I
posted above, based on what I posted and what you know?

Salvador, PZ's brass knuckles are metaphorical. Trust a Bible literalist to be unable to tell the difference.

And for what it's worth, I agree with him. I think we should hold you to your contempt for evolution -- no beef, pork, broccoli, seedless oranges, grapefruit, mustard, tomato ketchup, peaches, apples, or russet Burbank potatoes for you!

I dare you to try to live without evolution fruits, Salvador. You can't do it. You won't go without flu shots. You won't let your kids go without their DPTs, or whatever the modern equivalent is. You won't refuse antibiotics if your physician prescribes them. You won't modify your diet to elminate results of evolution.

You won't go to the lab to verify your bizarre claims. And we're going to mention that in every forum we can find.

Galileo, backing out of the court's presence and muttering "Still, it moves," was only doing what every living thing "says" to creationists. You can bellyache, you can get a state legislature or a school board to go along with you ("Ain't we got every fool in town on our side, and ain't that a big enough majority in any town," Mark Twain wrote), but the mosquitoes still evolve creating new organs to digest pesticides, the moths evolve to invent new ways to keep poisons from getting under the cuticle (what's a one-leg amputation if you have six to start with, plus wings?), and the Centers for Disease Control will keep tracking flu. Evolution falls on the high and the low, on the mighty and the weak, on the creationist and the Christian equally. You can deny it all you want, but still it evolves.

Katerina, with due respect, as important as PR for evolution might be, I think the truth is even more important. And the truth is that evolution as an unguided, contingent, materialistic process--as it must be for science even to study it--is acid to any religious belief that insists on a god who actively created and now sustains life, and has a teleological endpoint for his creation. And any belief system that allows for spontaneous interventions into the material world--bringing rain to end a drought because of peoples' prayers, for example, or pinning a flagellum onto a bacteria's butt--is antithetical to science. If one were to believe such things, how would one know that each time water froze at zero degrees Celsius it was not just a "miracle" of God's doing rather than an innate physical property? I apologize to those who find deep meaning and comfort and satisfaction in their religion and want to hold a scientific worldview as well. I understand that impulse. But PR or no PR, it is simply not possible to reconcile the findings of science with the revealed religions we have. Again I will say that no matter what we discover in reality, it will always be possible to posit a theistic explanation for it. But if one is stuck with sacred narratives of the various extent religious traditions, one must say that those gods simply cannot exist.

Quick note that I don't know where else to post--NPR's "Science Friday" today deals with the following topic:

August 12, 2005: Hour One: The Pope and Evolution--Host Ira Flatow talks with physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss about a letter he sent to the Pope asking for a clarification of the church's stand on evolution.

This show is broadcast at 1 p.m. central time, but you're probably going to want to go online and look up specifics for your area.

Greg,

No religious text says God pinned a flagellum onto a bacteria's butt.

Why should creationism be a dirty word? Theistic evolutionists can fully accept science, but they also accept the limits of scientific tools. Chance events do not necessarily exclude God. I am a creationist in that I accept the message of Genesis that God created. I am not saying anything you haven't heard before, am I? I tire of arguing this point, but here I go again..

There is a limit to what is observable and therefore, provable. It follows that no person, and no group of people, and not even humanity as a whole, can claim that everything is knowable. Sure, we should try to discover as much as possible, without restrictions or limits. Knowledge is awesome, and exciting, and useful. But we CAN'T know everything.

The next question is, what lies in the realm of the unknowable? We can't tell when a chance mutation will stirke. There are predictions we will never be able to make, gaps we will never be able to fill. The biblical text gives us a wonderful creation story, which reminds me of Jesus's parables. I believe it is meant to be symbolic, not literal, but I believe its main message. God created.

It is not at all difficult for me to accept science as a way of studying the world, and religion as a way of studying what is beyond science. The difficulty arises when people seek to justify their own personal convictions using a philosophy that is widely respected and accepted in our society, the philosophy of science. That philosophy can only lead us to a limited knowledge, knowledge of the observable. For those who believe there is nothing beyond the observable, fine. I, like many others, do not. I try to extend my senses and communicate with something greater than myself, greater than science, greater than the world. I seek spiritual fulfillment. That is wholly personal, and I don't see what science has to say about it.

Greg,

Thanks for the NPR Science Friday tip. My favorite show, and I almost forgot to listen to it.

Have the ID theorists considered one possible outcome of having ID introduced into the Biology curriculum; now Biologist get to fairly ask the question "WHY". No longer tied to what and how, the designer becomes fair game. If ID is not based in religion this should not be a problem, but there is evidence to the contrary.

Does the ID community really want the scientific community nosing around the designer. All sorts of uncomfortable questions will be asked. With our current level of understanding of the natural world it will be easy to fill volumes with questions for the designer. Any structure or biochemical pathway Behe has declared irreducibly complex is now be open to question. It's not a matter of pointing out what appears to be bad design it goes far beyond that.

Personally, I'm tired of answering questions from ID proponents, I'd much rather get back to asking questions. If a whole new area of research has opened up then I'm ready to jump in.

Unfortunately none of these questions are testable, none can be falsified. We've not seen any application of the explanatory filter in an attempt to identify any designed structures, all we have heard/seen are hand waving arguments.

I would suggest an appropriate structure to begin questioning is the eye, an Icon of Designâ„¢. A new journal is also required with an appropriate title.

Greg Peterson -

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504505.htm

http://www.mindandlife.org/hhdl.science_section.html

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp

Way up at the top of the page, I made a simple request.

"Please define "religion". And then discuss the experimental approach you plan to take to "disprove all religion". Let me repeat that for emphasis. If you claim that creationists are right, and we must have a battle between science education and "any or all religion", DEFINE "RELIGION". And show a planned experimental approach to "disprove all religion". Like Lenny Flank, I won't hold my breath."

I think that in general, when other people aren't harming you, it's rather obnoxious to express bigoted disdain for their cultural traits, whether it be the way they dress, the food they eat, or their religious practices. Now, if you have SCIENTIFIC evidence to refute the religious stances of the people I linked to above, please lay it out.

Andrew Rowell wrote,

"Is abiogenesis totally distinguished from evolution or is it part of it..."

Without abiogenesis, there would be no evolution. However, evolution begins immediately after abiogenesis, therefore while evolution depends upon abiogenesis occurring, abiogenesis in not a part of evolutionary theory.

Many people have difficulty making this distinction, which is subtle but very profound.

Shenda

Harold:

I believe I was very clear in saying "no matter what we discover in reality, it will always be possible to posit a theistic explanation for it." So your challenge to "disprove religion" or whatever is entirely phony and more than a little disingenuous.

But Harold, I have a much bigger ax to grind. Obnoxious or not, I do express disdain for people's "cultural traits." Hell, I seldom stop at disdain, moving quickly to scorn, revulsion, ridicule, and condemnation. And if you don't feel that way about the Taliban and its treatment of women, for example, then I question your morals. As far as people's cultural traits not hurting me, what an absurd thing to say after 9/11. Ah, you say, but I meant it was obnoxious to attack CHRISTIAN beliefs, which do not hurt you...I wasn't referring to radical Islam. But Christian beliefs do hurt me, Harold, and my society, all the time. From stem cell research bans to end-of-life issues to sex education to environmental protection to not being able to buy a bottle whiskey on a Sunday in my state, the frankly lidicrous beliefs of Christians do negatively affect my life, the safety of my children, and my future. I find it all but insane to suggest that beliefs should make no difference; if they didn't, why bother making such a fuss over them? It's because they do make such a difference that it is important that we foster beliefs that comform most plausibly with reality. On that level, the revealed religions are gigantic failures, and thus, dangerous. You think I'm obnoxious and Katrina thinks I harshed her ghostly mellow, but I'm afraid I don't care. There is a great deal at stake, and humanity can no longer afford the high cost of delusions, fantasies, and dorky Precious Moments figurines.

Andrew Rowell -

I'm repeating myself, because you seem to have evaded my questions.

"1. Does the belief in the possibility of unusual miracles disqualify a person from being a scientist? Is this official?
2. To do science or think in a scientific way must a scientist exclude completely the possibility of the reality of any higher personal beings (whether they be God, gods, angels, demons, ghosts, or superintelligent extraterrestrial influences)for example is SETI scientific?"

Anyone knows that there is no "official" position on whether or not someone is a "scientist", and that some prominent scientists are and have been religious (on a spectrum, ranging from orthodox positions like Catholicism to the less orthodox, like Einstein's spirtuality). There are plenty of scientists who conjecture the existence of extraterrestrial life, some religious, some not.

But you already knew that. Your implication is that anyone who rejects Dembski's ID "must" also reject these other, unrelated ideas. Or conversely, that anyone who is religious or believes in the possibility of extraterrestrial life is obliged to accept ID. I profoundly disagree.

"In this debate definitions of key terms are crucial. Even most intelligent YEC's do not deny the reality and usefulness of micro-evolution. Even they would agree that there are real facts here. YEC's, Long earth creationists and ID peeps argue that it is in the area of macro-evolution that we are struggling with materialistic explanations. Are evolutionists happy with the distinction between macro- and micro- evolution? Is it a helpful distinction? My understanding is that micro-evolution will cover things like bug antibiotic resistance, sickle cell anaemia and Ed Darrell's examples. Macro- evolution covers issues like the origin of the first membrane bound living organism, the generation of morphological novelty, the generation of radically new devolopemental structures and body plans and the development of human consciousness. The bacterial flagellum would then be somewhere at the edge of macro-evolution and Behe's irreducibly complex structures would be right on the edge of the macro-evolution border."

You say you want to define terms, but you offer no way of differentiating between "macroevolution" and "microevolution"; rather, you declare some arbitrary examples. One of them (origin of membrane bound cells) is not even an example of evolution. A theory of abiogenesis would be nice, and would complement and extend the theory of evolution, but properly speaking, the theory of evolution applies to cellular life and post-cellular life (such as viruses).

When scientists rarely use the terms "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, as a few British biologists do, or have in the past, they refer to a difference in degree of evolution from a common ancestor, not a difference in mechanism. Most scientists don't like the terms.

I'll close with a few questions -

1. Can you explain the theory of evolution fairly? I know someone has already offered a pretty good explanation, but even so, can you?
2. Can YOU define "microevolution" and "macroevolution" in a way that allows ME to differentiate one from the other consistently? Is the long ear of rabbits and hares an example of "microevolution" or "macroevolution", for example? Don't just give the answer, explain how you got the answer.
3. You say that some people are "struggling with materialistic explanations". Should scientists look for "non-materialistic explanations", and if so, HOW? Would that merely mean that scientists should give up on problems and declare that there is "no material explanation"? If not, how can "non-materialistic explanations" be scientifically tested and reproduced?
4. Lastly, can you explain ID? I'm confused by it. I need more details. WHAT IS THE ID EXPLANATION OF THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM, for example? In as much detail as possible, how was it "designed", who designed it, when, and why? Please explain how we can test your explanations. The experiments need not be practical, they need only be hypothetically possible.

On "teach the facts first," steve's proposed ad campaign, and Ed's brassica salad - marvelous!

This is something I've been dwelling on recently - if we don't offer decent catchphrases and practical, everyday-world examples, it won't matter that we're right. Evolution will keep hanging on - perhaps slowly gaining - in the noisy and confusing public square,* but depending on judicial appointments, science education might end up in a bad way.

Weisberg's argument is distinctly unimpressive, and shows little understanding of either science or religion. I've commented on this at greater length here.

The folks commenting on Ed over at Dembski's pad immediately apply their micro/macro distinction**, as well as the "you-used-a-human-directed-example-see-you-admit-design!" argument; more interestingly, the phrasing in some posts suggests they don't understand evolution as a population-level process, but something that happens to an individual.

"know what, i have a couple pimples of my face - so what ?
maybe the pimples know that i clean my face and take a bath so the have become
resistant ?. so what ? - where is the evo - in the evolution ?"

There's little understanding of the role or source of variation and selection, and an apparent case of mistaken identity - we're not Lamarckians . .

" If "mutation" is part of a bug's defense mechanism, then why would you call that "evolution"? It seems the bug is trying to continue his life as a bug----and is not trying to become a singing butterfly!"

I was just reading Pennock's description of Behe's groundhog analogy, which has a similar feature - the groundhog is trying to cross a 1000 lane highway, with predictable results. Pennock points out that a more accurate analogy would be a groundhog population crossing, generation by generation, lane after lane, with only the quickest/smartest/etc. contributing to the next generation of lane-crossers . . .

* I'm speaking here of how evolution does in the realm of public understanding and awareness. Various poll results suggest a relatively low level of scientific literacy in general, but they're not always well constructed . . .

** I don't think the micro/macro wall they put forth is relevent to most people beside commited IDers - and those are the one's we're trying to reach. But I'm often wrong.

Greg Peterson -

Thank you for expressing your views.

"From stem cell research bans to end-of-life issues to sex education to environmental protection to not being able to buy a bottle whiskey on a Sunday in my state"

It seems likely that I agree with you on these issues. It is silly to refer to the other position as the "Christian" position, since many or most Christians support stem cell research, dignified end of life choices, protecting the environment, etc. And many non-Christians oppose these things. Stalin was an atheist, after all, but that doesn't mean that it's fair to refer to his views on issues as "the" atheist position.

But this is a SCIENCE site. Your original point was not that the values of some people who call themselves Christians are bad values. There are lots of sites for religious dispute on the internet, but this one is a science site.

There is a difference between "I don't like your religion", or "I don't agree with your religion", and "Science disproves your religion".

So I repeat.

Now, if you have SCIENTIFIC evidence to refute the religious stances of the people I linked to above (now below), please lay it out.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504505.htm

http://www.mindandlife.org/hhdl.science_section.html

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp

If you're real point is that you don't like some other peoples' religious practices - possibly with good reason - why don't you just admit that?

But that isn't what this site is about, and the claim that the theory of evolution somehow disproves all relgion is an incorrect one. This is a science site.

And as a Taoist I agree with you. "Above the heavens and below the heavens, I alone am the Honored One."

— Lenny

Greg - you're lumping. The Unitarian down the street and Fred Phelps are, I would say, slightly different. The struggle against Dominionism (religioustolerance.org link and wikipedia link) is one thing, going after Precious Moments figures with an rhetorical ax is something else altogether.

In terms of the science-ed issue, any religious belief/organization/person that doesn't try to abolish or pervert science education is an ally.

"No religious text says God pinned a flagellum onto a bacteria's butt."
Hey, I spat my ice tea all over the laptop! You guys are gonna owe me a new computer!!

rain and rain dances, etc - here's Wittgenstein on this, writing in reaction to Frazer (literally, as in scribbling marginal notes in his copy of the Golden Bough):

"I read in many similar examples, of a rain-king in Africa to whom people beg for rain when the rainy season comes. But that surely means that they don't really think that he could make rain, otherwise they would do this in the dry periods of the year when the country is "a parched and arid desert.""

This is from Tambiah's book Magic, science, religion, and the scope of rationality. Very, very cool - read it quick some years ago, rereading now . . . well, I would be if I wasn't wasting time reading criticisms of evolution that rank up there with "The Yankees are such a bad hockey team!"

You can play with all sorts of distinctions between causual and performative/participatory acts and explanations . . .

Ah, Harold. Why is it you don't think I like some people's religious practices? It's because they are based on things that are factually wrong, that's why. It's hard to get ahead in this cosmos without some basic effort to conform to reality.

I read all the articles you linked to. And they go considerable distance toward proving my earliest point: there is a great dilution here between religion and science, in which science spreads its shuddering knees to let religion in, just the tip, and religion pretends that, hey, whatever you white labcoat folks are saying now, that's all we really meant all along. But this is nonsense. I have agreed that science can never disprove the existence of some sort of deity. A malicious deity, an incompetent deity, perhaps a part-time deity with a more exciting project the next universe over to worry about. It's all possible. But on rational, probabilistic grounds (which I admit are partly metaphysical, but INFORMED by science), there simply is no room for the gods of the revealed religions. The only way you can MAKE room for these gods is by shoving much of the contents of the revelations out of the room first. Science reveals a contingent universe that looks nothing like the design and plan outlined in, for example, the Bible. As I initially noted, the God of the Bible might be rescued from this obvious conflict with observed reality by turning key passages in, for example, Genesis into mere parables and metaphors. So if one is going to apply reason anyway, and use reason as the measuring stick by which to judge revelation, why not just do away with revelation completely? That way you can construct a very reasonable divinity in perfect alignment with whatever you observe and you won't have to worry as much about making up excuses for how revelation says something quite different than what reason and science demonstrate.

Greg,

Your point is a simple one, but it has the weight of opinion, and no more. Opinions are cool, as long as they admit to being just that. Right now people who share your opinion are mixing up the issues when it comes to a proper scientific education, vs. quack science education. It is not helpful. If you have something against Christianity in general, this really isn't the place.

I think this macro- micro- thing is ridiculous. Always have.
1+1=2, but 1+1+1+1+1=/5?

I think the burden needs to rest squarely on the creationists when they claim that some mechanism preserves Yaweh's beloved "kinds."

And the "speciation happened in a human-directed situation, that proves design" is just feeble too. It's self-contradictory:
IDer: "evolution is not an experimental science; you can't observe it."
Biologist: "well, I did this experiment, and--"
IDer: "you just proved my point. life must have had a designer/experimenter!"

If people persist in aping this utter bilge, I don't think a PR campaign with Elvis and Jesus doing a "Who's on first?" routine at the halftime of the Superbowl is going to make a bit of difference.

People want to believe, and that's not going to change substantially, in our lifetimes anyway.

Greg -

"Ah, Harold. Why is it you don't think I like some people's religious practices? It's because they are based on things that are factually wrong, that's why. It's hard to get ahead in this cosmos without some basic effort to conform to reality."

It is, of course, none of your damn business whether other peoples' religious practices are factually wrong or not. Nor have you presented a shred of evidence to defend this point.

That opinion is not relevant to the topic of this site, and repeating it serves no purpose. Everybody gets the point. According to you, atheism is the superior philosophy, and its practioners are better than people who adhere to a different philosophy. Oddly enough, this is exactly what the Taliban thought about their brand of Islam, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence. This isn't the type of thing that science can be applied to, is it?

You see, that's what I like about science. It isn't about a bunch of dueling philosophies, with a bunch of angry big-egoed guys contradicting each other ad infinitum. Oh, sure, there are plenty of angry big-egoed guys in science, but they have to do science. They have to produce SCIENTIFIC ideas. Ideas that can be tested.

I dare you to try to live without evolution fruits, Salvador. You can't do it. You won't go without flu shots. You won't let your kids go without their DPTs, or whatever the modern equivalent is. You won't refuse antibiotics if your physician prescribes them. You won't modify your diet to elminate results of evolution. You won't go to the lab to verify your bizarre claims. And we're going to mention that in every forum we can find.

OK, last volley from me, because two points are important to me:

First, far from having something against Christianity, many of my loved ones are Christians, I have a degree in Bible earned while studying to be a Baptist pastor (I was never ordained, though, and went into communications instead) and worked for Billy Graham for years. I had a great experience as a Christian and loved the church, which felt like home and family. I still miss it sometimes. The only thing I "have against" Christianity is that it's mistaken, and I'm nearly always willing to overlook that because I believe that while, as you say, opinions are merely "cool," being reasonable and compassionate and friendly are always in season.

HOWEVER...and this goes to Harold's repeated point that this is a science blog. Indeed it is. But look at the title and subject of this posting, and its implications. I feel as if I am being asked, essentially, to hush up about the atheistic implications for evolution because it's bad press. But the fact remains that while a god MAY work through, or initiate, evolutionary processes, no god is required for them. As Laplace said, "I have no need of [a god] hypothesis." (That was him, right?)

So what do you and other people of faith who wisely accept the fact of evolution wish for me to do? Keep to myself, sacrifice integrity on the altar of expedience? To me the atheistic implications of evolution are obvious and they are substantial, impinging on most key doctrines in the Bible, notably humanity's fall, God's sovereignty, and an eternal afterlife. Biology and physics argue strongly against such things. It's not merely a matter of opinion, manufactured out of air or selected at random. I am an atheist by dint of facts and reason...I didn't assume atheism from the start. If I were going to have an opinion based solely on what it felt good to believe, I would probably be a contented liberal Christian right now. Some of Harold's phrasing makes it sound as if atheism is for me some sort of presupposition; on the contrary, arriving at atheism entailed an agonizing and lengthy process of reason, exploration, and thought--including in very large measure SCIENTIFIC thought.

I might be guilty of some brash rhetoric on occasion, and for that I do apologize, but my ego is not so outsized as you imply. I find science an excellent method of learning such things as are likely to be factual, and often what I learn cannot be easily harmonized with any interpretation of the Bible that still recognizes the Bible as meaningful.

I feel obligated, too, to admit that on one level I admire the demented, pathological ravings of "Rev." Phelps more than I would the meretricious pandering of some Unitarian pastors I've heard. At least Phelps is telling the truth about what the Bible says. I realize there are ways to read scripture that don't come off quite as harsh as the "God hates" garbage, but the Levitical command to stone homosexuals is hardly the open-armed love-fest that liberal Christians are now pretending to find in scripture.

As long as revelation can be twisted to say absolutely anything you'd like it to say, then of course nothing, ever, can contradict your faith. Good for you for being Teflon-coated and bullet-proof in your opinions. But if you're going to adopt some of the trappings of science and reason, at least be honest about the need for heavy qualification, and don't act as if someone like me, with no stomach for pretending the issues don't exist, is somehow the bad guy.

Sal, your toy example, as usual, is feeble.
What, in principle prevents building a skyscraper out of grass?

The burden is on you, in the real world problem of evolution-denial, to show that a well-understood, logically inevitable mechanism, in principle cannot produce changes in populations that would represent the evolution of novel "kinds"?

Not only is it true that "macro"evolution occurs, I defy you to tell me how you can stop it occuring.

Since he seems to reside in the intellectual equivalent of a very small acquarium, Sal probably doesn't remember that some grasses have evaded those speed limits on change and, um, evolved considerable structural strength.

In fact, in the construction of Asian skyscrapers, these stalks of grass serve as the multi-story scaffolding on which the construction work depends.

Varieties of these same super-stalks are now sawn and planed and laid down instead of oak for use as hardwood floors.

Sal, go google "bamboo."

Then either answer Lenny's questions--no, we haven't forgetten that you have never done so--or just go away again...

CJO'Brien:
"People want to believe, and that's not going to change substantially, in our lifetimes anyway."

Rich:
"You stick it to them! Also, evolution can't explain art or ghosts or people speaking tongues in church."

IMHO, evolution of a certain heritable characteristic that could begin to 'explain the inexplicable' - something beyond the meme level - might be advantageous. Would it not be more comfortable for members of a less-complex, low technological society to develop a feeling for supernatural explanations? With increasing levels of technology and the ability to find naturalistic explanations this (now disadvantageous) characteristic
might be able to explain some deliberate ignorance. (Simplified model: Me=rational homozygous; Dembski=heterozygous; most fundies=irrational homozygous) ;-)

There are lots of sites for religious dispute on the internet, but this one is a science site.

— Harold

But the fact remains that while a god MAY work through, or initiate, evolutionary processes, no god is required for them.

So what do you and other people of faith who wisely accept the fact of evolution wish for me to do? Keep to myself, sacrifice integrity on the altar of expedience?

often what I learn cannot be easily harmonized with any interpretation of the Bible that still recognizes the Bible as meaningful.

As long as revelation can be twisted to say absolutely anything you'd like it to say, then of course nothing, ever, can contradict your faith.

If people persist in aping this utter bilge, I don't think a PR campaign with Elvis and Jesus doing a "Who's on first?" routine at the halftime of the Superbowl is going to make a bit of difference.

— C.J.O'Brien

But is such a deductive leap justified? I say no.

ts,

I agree that we should ask why so many people feel threatened by evolution, and that it is vitally important to the issue at hand. I think they feel threatened because some of the popularizers of science like Dawkins have mixed in their own "metaphysical" views, using science to justify them. This is unfortunate, and should be conceded.

Come on, don't be a drama queen.

came to Christianity through feelings and reasoning

I started out knowing there was something greater out there than myself

I agree that we should ask why so many people feel threatened by evolution, and that it is vitally important to the issue at hand. I think they feel threatened because some of the popularizers of science like Dawkins have mixed in their own "metaphysical" views, using science to justify them. This is unfortunate, and should be conceded.

Katarina,

The fear among creationists was driven by creationist gurus claiming that evolutionists were coming to take away their Bibles and children before Richard Dawkins was born.

Dawkins occasionally falls into a mold similar to the bete noire painted by charlatan preachers and other fear mongers among creationists, but that's hardly reason to concede something that is just wrong.

Evolution doesn't deny God in any fashion -- at least, not to a Christian who starts with the faith statement that God is the prime mover in the universe. Evolution is only threatening to those who claim to know, better than God, how God should have created things, and who refuse to let God have a voice in the matter.

Darwin's evidence was what God presented. The evidence for evolution still is. It's not evolution that denies God's role.

Gould speculated that evolution was the most difficult pedestal for people to climb off of. We had to admit we weren't at the center of the universe, and we did that only grudgingly. Now we are supposed to admit that we aren't special in any way, just an accident of a contingent process, chunks of ambulatory meat no different in principle from any other animal and closely related to truly unsightly caricatures of our exalted selves.

Evolution, by implication, says to the True Believer: If you accept me, you will have to find the meaning of your life all on your own. You must LEARN it, rather than simply memorize it. And you will have to come to grips with your own mortality. And the self-righteous superiority you assign yourself over all others can no longer be justified on any but the most narrowly selfish grounds. And finally, to know anything you must exert lifelong effort; just making up what you want isn't good enough anymore.

But in what other sense can we know that there is something "greater than" us? Science rejects such proclamations of personal knowledge, it is incompatible with them. As soon as you start making claims about knowledge and reason, you are entering the area where science reigns.

Evolution, by implication, says to the True Believer: If you accept me, you will have to find the meaning of your life all on your own. You must LEARN it, rather than simply memorize it. And you will have to come to grips with your own mortality. And the self-righteous superiority you assign yourself over all others can no longer be justified on any but the most narrowly selfish grounds. And finally, to know anything you must exert lifelong effort; just making up what you want isn't good enough anymore.

It is time to decide your fate. I will flip a coin--heads you live, tails you die. I flip the coin. It has come up heads, and you are spared.

Now, what spared you? Was it fate? Did some cosmic force intercede to save you? Or are you alive today because of chance, because of a random event?

Either view is consistent with the facts, although the first requires the addition of faith.

This is evolution. It appears mechanically to be a random coin flip, however you may ascribe whatever meaning to the results you wish.

But is such a deductive leap justified? I say no.