Some thoughts of my own, and I will try to stay focused upon the topic:
As someone with a scientific education, I don't think it is particularly
surprising or illogical (I'll explain what I mean by that shortly) that so many
people still reject the theories of evolution and natural selection, despite
having otherwise decent educations. If you envision the human mind as a fresh
farm field, there are only certain times of the year that crops can be planted,
and be expected to grow and develop into something usable/edible by harvest
time. The plants sown require certain nutrients and a certain amount of water
and sunlight in order to grow and be healthy. The most important stages of
growth are quite necessarily the early stages, where young plants are
struggling to push up their stems and produce leaves. Other than competing
with each other for nutrients, water, and sunlight, the plants also must
compete with other plants not sown ("weeds", the classic derogatory term for
any undesired plant). The success of the
harvest is contingent upon how proficiently the farmer manages the crops as a
good steward of the land and the prevailing climatic conditions.
I'll be more direct and less allegorical at this point, for purposes of
clarity. The fresh farm field is a child's mind. The crops/plants are
knowledge, thoughts, ideas, experiences. The weeds are knowledge, thoughts,
ideas, and experiences that were not originally intended to be taught/learned,
but have been learned anyway, due to the fact that nature (and human knowledge)
are not closed, isolated systems. The harvest is the end point, at which a
viable, responsible, working human adult is produced, and the farmer/s is the
adult/adults who have educated these children to adulthood.
If you haven't become too frustrated reading my colorful analogies at this
point, my basic opinion is this: The existence of creationism, the religious
ideas and ideals that are shoved down the throats of billions of people on this
planet every day will continue (quite logically) if educated scientists
continue current approaches to spreading education of the scientific process
and the strong evidence for evolution and natural selection. The reason why so
many people still reject evolution is because of the way they are raised;
people who are taught that the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book is the
literal word of God and the absolute truth of everything from childhood will
not accept evolution, a quaint, "human" explanation of how the Earth and the
life upon it came into being as it exists today. This is especially true
considering that children are brainwashed with religious nonsense from the
beginning of their lives, while most children
will not get a taste of the theory of evolution until high school or even
college in some circumstances. How, as scientists, as educated human beings
who believe in reason, honestly expect that our efforts to educate others about
science will be sufficiently fruitful if we continue with the methodologies
that exist today?
I am not talking about compromising scientific ideals about impartiality, the
requirement of evidence, the necessity of quantitative testing, the importance
of empirical observation, etc., but I am talking about educating people about
evolution when they are far younger. Children, not teenagers, need to be
taught about evolution, natural selection, the scientific process, and the
analytical, fact/reason-based way of thinking from the onset of their life.
Not at 16 or 18 years old, but at 6 and 8 years old. Granted, the concepts may
need to be simplified so that the children could understand what they were
being taught, but I think it would be a far more effective way to spread the
scientific paradigm throughout the general populace.
Note, I'm not talking about "Brain-washing" children with the ideas of modern
science. I'm talking about teaching them how to think scientifically at an
early age, so that they can, on their own, come to the same tentative
conclusions we all have; the earth was created billions of years ago by natural
physical processes, that life slowly but surely came into being on Earth due to
chemical interactions, and that life evolved into many different, amazing forms
over billions of years. We need to open the minds of the general populace, and
that is easier when they are children, and their minds are more open to new
knowledge, as they have not yet formed beliefs that can be contradicted by
other beliefs.
I hope I haven't been overly verbose for any of you. Thank you for reading,
and please, I hope my statements encourage more discussion.
- Derek E. Pursell
--- On Sun, 2/15/09, Jimmy Green <jamesgree...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Jimmy Green <jamesgree...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 9:16 PM
A few things on which I'd like to (re)focus:
"Semantics", like "theory" and "evolution", is a
word that can
be subjectively loaded and consequently misunderstood or maligned (the word
"quibbling" comes to mind). However, words and their definitions are
at the
heart of this discussion, and the dialogue that is had with Americans in
these polls.
So, I heartily agree with what Jim Crants said about belief, faith, and
logic. Scientists "believe" that logic and empiricism is a valid way
of
discovering truth. This might be the only valid point that creationists
have, when they assert that scientists are biased because they subscribe to
"philosophical materialism." This must be true, because this is, for
most
people, the essence of science!
Still, most (all?) people are "philisophical materialists" when it
suits
them, or unconsciously--either in the use of technologies derived from
scientific theory or just in the everyday navigation through the world using
basic cycles of observation and inference. I must reassert that this
unconscious hypocrisy (a strong word, but apt) springs from a lack of
understanding of how those basic scientific processes--observation and
inference--can grow into a reliable body of knowledge, i.e., a collection of
usable, adaptable, interconnected "theories." Not just a
misunderstanding
of how a theory is used, but how it grows, changes, or is legitimately
replaced.
I am biased towards science as a way of knowing, only in the sense that I
can see that is has worked in the past and continues to work, even in the
confines of my own life (like in my methodical attempts to answer earlier
today, "where is that smell coming from?"). However, science
literate
people need to first agree on the importance and definitions of words like
"theories" and "laws" (two different things, by the way),
and then not blur
those lines in their discussions of science, and resist the attempts of
others to dumb down or redefine these words--like creationists/IDers,
pollsters, and certain presidents.
So to sum up, asking whether someone "thinks" or "believes"
something, like
a theory, is taking away the breadth, and with it the power, of the theory.
A theory is only as good as it works, but the "how" part of theories
is not
asked in these polls. If we ask questions like "do you think there is
scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution (by natural
selection)?," we are likely to get some unfortunate responses, but at
least
they'll be more expository, and less misleading, than asking about beliefs.
I suppose, getting back to Jim's point, we could also just pair the
"belief"
poll question with one that asks whether you also believe logic and
observations can inform you in your life and in science as a body of
knowledge.
Thanks! That's enough out of me.
Jimmy Green
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:49 PM, William Silvert
<cien...@silvert.org>wrote:
> Which theory of gravity? Newton's or Einstein's? Or the as yet
undiscovered
> unified theory?
>
> Bill Silvert
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Schultz" <
> matthias6...@yahoo.com>
> To: "William Silvert" <cien...@silvert.org>;
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:36 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution
>
>
> what if the gallup poll question had been "do you believe in the
theory of
>> gravity"?
>> what you think the responses would have been?
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: William Silvert <cien...@silvert.org>
>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 4:58:35 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on
evolution
>>
>> I share the feeeling of Wendee and other respondents that
"believe" is not
>> an appropriate word. The problem is that we haven't really come up
wth
>> alternatives that reflect the inherent skepticism of science but that
are
>> also meaningful to the general public. Evolution is a credible theory,
>> well-supported by evidence, etc., but none of these phrases have much
bite.
>> After all, there is still a lot of common reference to
"scientific proof",
>> and any attempts to revise our language to conform to the way that
>> scientists think (or should think) will simply weaken our case and be
jumped
>> on by those who argue that the only thngs we really know are that g*d
>> exists, that everything in the bible/koran/etc. is absolutely true,
and that
>> theirs is the only true faith. Knowledge is power, ain't it?
>>
>> Bill Silvert
>>
>
