The Gradual Illumination of the Mind [Evolution]

Scientific American ^ | February 2002 issue | Michael Shermer

[PatrickHenry]

In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

In a forced binary choice between the "theory of creationism" and the "theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said that they were "unsure"). One explanation for these findings can be seen in additional results showing that just 34 percent considered themselves to be "very informed" about evolution.

Although such findings are disturbing, truth in science is not determined democratically. It does not matter what percentage of the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution. The preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeography, and so on) points to the same conclusion--evolution is real. The 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called this process of independent lines of inquiry converging together to a conclusion a "consilience of inductions." I call it a "convergence of evidence." Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proved.

The reason we are experiencing this peculiarly American phenomenon of evolution denial (the doppelgnäger of Holocaust denial, using the same techniques of rhetoric and debate) is that a small but vocal minority of religious fundamentalists misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions. Given this misunderstanding, their response is to attack the theory. It is no coincidence that most evolution deniers are Christians who believe that if God did not personally create life, then they have no basis for belief, morality and the meaning of life. Clearly for some, much is at stake in the findings of science.

Because the Constitution prohibits public schools from promoting any brand of religion, this has led to the oxymoronic movement known as "creation science" or, in its more recent incarnation, "intelligent design" (ID). ID (aka God) miraculously intervenes just in the places where science has yet to offer a comprehensive explanation for a particular phenomenon. (ID used to control the weather, but now that we understand it, He has moved on to more difficult problems, such as the origins of DNA and cellular life. Once these problems are mastered, then ID will no doubt find even more intractable conundrums.) Thus, IDers would have us teach children nonthreatening theories of science, but when it comes to the origins of life and certain aspects of evolution, children are to learn that "ID did it." I fail to see how this is science--or what, exactly, ID-ers hope will be taught in these public schools. "ID did it" makes for a rather short semester.

To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists, we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation. It is not enough to argue that creationism is wrong; we must also show that evolution is right. The theory's founder, Charles Darwin, knew this when he reflected: "It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science."

Michael Shermer [the author] is founding publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com) and author of The Borderlands of Science.

[f.Christian]

You darwinist-liberaltarians make a good Truth chopper...wood chips and trivia---particle-carboard and rubbish pickers!

Enlightenment at the landfill--dung heap!

[longshadow]

The subject of this debate is of course, Theory of Evolution, and Creation, a Physical Phenomena, not of mathematical logic. It is in this context, I was writing about.

So was I.

The reference to Mathematical theorems and logic statements was to contrast those areas in which proof is feasible, with those where it isn't (scientific theories). Lack of "proof" of scientific theories isn't some sort of shameful shortcoming on the part of the theory; it is the nature of the beast, for the reasons of practicality that I mentioned. There is no philosphical shortcoming in Man that prevents us from "proving" scientific Theories to be TRUE; they were never intended to be "proven" the way theorems are.

Scientific theories are accepted, based on the their concurrence with the preponderance of the evidence and repeated multiple unsuccessful attempts at falsification.

In that sense, the Theory of Evolution rests on as firm ground as does the Theory of Gravitation or Quantum Mechanics. That none of them is "proven" is of no serious concern, as no scientist expects any theory to be proven.

The expect otherwise would grind science to a halt.

[rwfromkansas]

skeptic magazine? Yeah, that is a good source. lol

[rwfromkansas]

I will listen to that. Thanks for the link.

[longshadow]

Big squeegee day; Thunderbird binge; stagger; collapse in alley; vomit; urine; sleep; dream. [emphasis added]

More likely "Mad Dog 20/20" than "Thunderbird".....

[desertcry]

it seems to take a few hundred million years give or take The Universe is about 15 billion years old, and the solar system is only about 4.5 billion years old(based on the best known scientific data). Thus from the Big Bang to the time of the appearance of the ant, it took at least 12 billion years(assuming the ant existed way before the 1st dinasaur appeared). This indeed is a long time, but it is nothing compared to the time that would have been required to produce the Big Bang, and Matter to condensed out of the energy produced by the Big Bang. The time would have been infinite, without the CREATOR. To understand however, what I have just said would require some rudimentary knowledge of High Energy Physics, and Astrophysics. If this interest you, go to the web, and look under Astronomy, and High Energy Physics. To go beyound that, I suggest, read a little bit about the Super String Theory. It's quite a enlightening reading. Please don't take this as a put down, I'm just giving some info, in case you are interested. Have a good evening.

[rwfromkansas]

In the peer-review community, anyone who had scientific evidence criticizing evolution would be laughed out of that career. Evolutionists are not interested in science. They are interested in an agenda.

[desertcry]

I agree with you as far as the rigor of proof available in proving a mathemathical theorem. But placing The Theory of Godless Evolution(evolution separate, and independent from Creation) in the same level as the Theory of Gravitation, and Quantum mechanics is where we disaggree. The theory of Gravitation(I assume you are talking about the General Theory of Relativity), and Quantum Mechanics uses the rigors of Mathematics as a tool in it's development. I have not seen such rigor being applied to the Theory of Evolution. Thus the comparison is not apple to apple.

[longshadow]

The theory of Gravitation(I assume you are talking about the General Theory of Relativity), and Quantum Mechanics uses the rigors of Mathematics as a tool in it's development. I have not seen such rigor being applied to the Theory of Evolution. Thus the comparison is not apple to apple.

And Capt. Queeg used "geometric logic" to prove that the crew were stealing strawberries and conspiring against him. Did that "prove" his theory? Did it make it more powerful?

That Mathematics is used as a tool in the development of a scientific theory is no assurance that the theory is correct. That it is not used to the same extent in biological theories as it is in physics is no basis to deny the biological theory the same standing as one in Physics.

As long as it fits the preponderance of the evidence, has survived repeated attempts at falsification, and has been used to make verifiable predictions, a theory is justified in being accepted by the scientific community, regardless of whether or not Mathematics was used to develop the theory.

[desertcry]

It looks like this dialog has gone down to a much lower level, when I saw Capt. queeg's name appeared. Have a good evening.

[Physicist]

To understand however, what I have just said would require some rudimentary knowledge of High Energy Physics, and Astrophysics.

I have both, and what you said is wrong.

[PatrickHenry]

The time would have been infinite, without the CREATOR.

You are saying that the universe would be impossible without supernatural assistance. Please prove this. Use all the physics and astronomy at your disposal. You will be surprised at how many on this website will be able to critique your argument.

[desertcry]

Physicist, please tell me, why I'm wrong? This could be a very long journey.

[desertcry]

I find nothing wrong with good civilized criticsms. I see that the Physicists, who claims expertice in both High Energy Physics, and Astrophysics have joined your formidable forces. The Cream of FR on the frontier of science, against an old FREEPER of the desert. It's an interesting, though maybe a onesided contest, considering I'm such a lousy typist, an speller.

[PatrickHenry]

The Cream of FR on the frontier of science, against an old FREEPER of the desert. It's an interesting, though maybe a onesided contest, considering I'm such a lousy typist, an speller.

Never mind the "old man of the desert" stuff. Let's get to it. Please demonstrate the impossibility of the universe. You not only have a few freepers' attention, but the whole universe may be curious as well.

[Physicist]

Physicist, please tell me, why I'm wrong?

First, you stated that it takes an infinitely long time to "produce the Big Bang". This shows a basic misunderstanding of the geometry of spacetime close to the Big Bang. Here is a reply of mine that can help you to understand.

Second, you stated that it takes an infinitely long time to "condense matter out of the energy produced by the Big Bang". I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I can think of three possibilities: A) that you think it would take an infinite time for particles to form; B) that you think it would take an infinite time for density fluctuations to appear; or C) that you think it would take an infinitely long time for large-scale structures to collapse gravitationally from the density fluctuations. It turns out, all the timescales are calculable, and all agree with the observed structure of the universe.

Let's start with A. Particles such as quarks and leptons are, as far as we can tell, fundamental. If they had to condense at all, it must necessarily have been at an earlier time than any current theory can account for. (I hope we will have an exact answer in the next decade.) Photons as we see them appeared with the breaking of the electroweak symmetry, when the universe was about 10^-11 seconds old. (This sounds like it's immediately after the instant of creation, but the universe at that point was 21 orders of magnitude older than it was when the inflationary phase ended.) Protons and neutrons first appear when the universe was a million times older than that, at an age of 10^-5 seconds. The only variable these times are predicated upon is the expansion (and therefore the cooling) of the universe.

Now B: Density fluctuations were caused by sound waves. We can see these density fluctuations by looking at the spherical harmonic expansion of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). Here is a plot made by the Boomerang collaboration:

The data points represent the power spectrum of the fluctuations as we see them (with l=1000 representing fluctuations about 1/3 of a degree across). The curve represents the expected acoustic spectrum predicted as a result of inflation. The agreement is stunning.

Finally, C: Here is a post I made that demonstrates how large-scale structure arises from the acoustically-caused density fluctuations.

[longshadow]

It looks like this dialog has gone down to a much lower level, when I saw Capt. queeg's name appeared.

I sorry you feel my example of Capt. Queeg using Mathematics to bolster HIS "theory" was so off-putting.

I used it to merely illustrate the point I was making: that just because a theory is developed with the aid of Mathematics (or claimed to be, as in the case of Queeg), it in and of itself provides no more assurance that the theory is RIGHT than a non-Mathematically developed theory can.

The "goodness" of a theory is measured by how well it fits the evidence, how accurate its predictions are, and how well it resists falsification. How the theory was developed is irrelevant to how "good" it is, once it is formulated.

[Dumb_Ox]

By the way, here's an interesting Review of Steven Pinker's last book.

ironically, there is a good evolutionary reason for looking for the truth: it works. those who adhere to the truth prosper, those who don't, don't.

But from the evolutionary perspective, prosperity is simply the promulgation of one's genes. Sometimes lies work better than the truth in this respect, like the Cassanova who is an unusually good liar. "Oh yeah, baby, I'll love you forever! After tonight, let's get married!" His genes might be spread around the world before George Washington gets his boots on. Or off, as the case may be.

Moreover, there are evolutionary schools that see religion, for instance, as a "good lie" that gives meaning to meaningless lives, and keeps people from killing themselves and/or each other. These are the kind of atheists who bug me even more than the militant God-is-a-fiction types.

[Quila]

I'm no theologian, but it seems to me that if I had the option of interpreting Genesis either literally or as metaphor, and one option put me at odds with the observed world, while the other was consistent with observed reality, it would seem perverse to choose the interpretation which unnecessarily created the conflict.

Wow. This is one of the most lucid posts I've ever seen here.

Unfortunately, many have based their belief systems on the infallibility of the literal word of the Bible. Should any part of the Bible be shown not to be literally true, it would disrupt their whole basis for belief. Take Kent Hovind for example.

[Quila]

not a theory, because they can't prove it

Go back and read your science books. If you want a proof for anything, look to math and nothing else.