Evolution is often referred to as only a theory. In scientific circles, theory does not refer to a tentative hypothesis, or some sort of guess, nor does it imply any amount of uncertainty. It is a framework that is used to explain a collection of facts. The theory of gravity is not an unheard of phrase in physics circles, yet no scientist doubts the existence of gravity. The fact that evolution is called a theory is not grounds for doubt in the theory.
Evolution is not an atheistic agenda or an attempt to rule God out of the universe. It is accepted by the great majority of religious biologists as well as atheists. It isn't an attempt to rule God out of the universe because it can't be used that way.
Evolution is not faith-based. Even if evolution is not true, as long as people have examined the evidence and are honestly mistaken they are not taking something on faith. One could imply that those who are not educated on the matter but trust the consensus of scientists to be right most of the time are taking it on faith, but that is only a portion of those who believe in evolution. Anyway, the better word here would be trust, because it doesn’t have the connotations of irrational belief.
Nor is Evolution a theory that we came about by a random accident. While there is a random aspect, one can give a fairly good prediction of how a species will evolve based on the selection pressure in the environment.
Evolution is not called Darwinism in scientific circles. Darwinism is generally a term used be creationists to imply some sort of personality cult, or by people who have heard other people call it that. It is also used to distinguish the mainstream theory of evolution from the concept of guided evolution, however naturalistic evolution is a far better phrase here than Darwinism. Genetics, for example, is a major part of any current version of evolutionary theory; however
There is no controversy over evolution in the scientific community. While scientists can be quote-mined for sayings that make it look like they are expressing serious doubt in evolution, they are almost invariably debating about competing versions of the theory. Over 99% of scientists with doctorates in the field accept evolution.
Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life. Given that the first replicator, (Does not have to be, and almost definitely was not a cell or what we would understand as an organism) it explains the development of all the species on the planet to day.
Evolution is not untestable. Evolution could be proven false by all sorts of evidence were it to show up. If fossils for rabbits, horses, dogs, and other present day animals were discovered in the fossil record instead of the changes over time that we do see, that would be evidence against evolution instead of for it. If we find (which we do) that we share endogenous retroviruses ("Scars" on our DNA from certain types of viruses that infected our ancestor's DNA) with close descendants on the evolutionary tree, that is evidence for evolution. If such non-beneficial and random elements were not shared by our genetic cousins, that would be evidence against evolution.
Nor does evolution fail the scientific criteria of reproducibility. All that is demanded is that the research and experiments can be reproduced, not that the actual historical event be reproduced. And evolution can be reproduced in the lab to a significant degree. Bacteria reproduce so fast one can cover thousands of generations in a few years.
Nor is the theory of evolution responsible for leading to the holocaust, or any other eugenics attempt. Darwin's idea was not that the fittest should survive, but that the process of natural selection is what created the variety of species we see. The idea that you can get the traits you want in your livestock by controlling which animals breed is artificial selection and has been around since ancient history. The holocaust is based on those ideas, Hitler's appeal to evolution makes no more sense than his appeal to Christianity in his campaign to eliminate what he considered to be inferior races.Similarly, the theory of evolution is a theory on how species originated, it has no moral implications on how humans should act. It no more leads to the belief that every man should fend for himself than the theory of gravity leads to the belief that you should push people off cliffs.
This list of misconceptions might be expanded later.
30 comments:
i thought a theory meant that it hadn't been 100% proven.
if it were, wouldn't it be a law?
Nope, in science the word has a slightly different meaning than in common usage. The difference between a theory and a law is a matter of scope. A theory is an explanatory framework which can contain many laws, as well as an extensive network of facts. Laws are simpler relationships, certainly simpler than the entirety of mechanisms that factor into evolution.
Counter-intuitively, this leads to Newton's law of gravitation being less accurate than any modern theory of gravity.
Also, you failed to type "first post".
first post?
Now you typed "first post" in your third post. Smooth.
There's this internet fad where people will post "first post" whenever they get the oppurtunity to post first on something, instead of putting in any meaningful content.
oh, that's lame.
i prefer meaningful content to lameness.
BZ,
Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts on the subject of evolution. I enjoyed reading your viewpoint and found it quite insightful.
Believe it or not, I agree with you on most of what you have to say. I have a few comments in response, which I will post periodically. For starters:
“The fact that evolution is called a theory is not grounds for doubt in the theory.”
I agree wholeheartedly. I wish I could say you are attacking a straw-man argument here, but alas, I have seen far too many people use the label of “theory” as a cheap-shot against evolution. I join with you in opposition to this line of argument.
“Evolution is not an atheistic agenda or an attempt to rule God out of the universe.”
I can agree that the theory of evolution – properly understood – is not an attempt to rule God out of the universe. However, just as people misguidedly use the word “theory” to denigrate evolution, many people attempt to use evolution as proof that God does not exist. They may be misguided, but I cannot fault someone for responding to that argument when it is presented.
With that said, I believe it would also be wrong for someone who doesn’t accept evolution to claim that all believers in evolution have such a goal. One of the theologians I have been reading lately - Brian McLaren - has devoted an entire book to why evolution and God can coexist, although I have not read that particular work quite yet. I am, however, open to such a position.
“Evolution is not faith-based.”
The truth of this assertion depends on your definition of the word “faith.” While one possible definition of “faith” may be “irrational belief,” that is not the only possible definition of the word, or the best for this context. The first dictionary.com definition of “faith” is “confidence or trust in a person or thing.” If one defines “faith” in this way, then I believe evolution would be “faith-based.” Based upon your post, it would seem you would have to agree, as you say the better word is “trust.”
C.S. Lewis defined faith as “the art of holding on to things your reason has one accepted, in spite of your changing moods.” I like that definition very much. It would seem that both the Christian and the atheist would need this type of faith in order to maintain the beliefs they have reasoned their way to.
“Nor is Evolution a theory that we came about by a random accident. While there is a random aspect, one can give a fairly good prediction of how a species will evolve based on the selection pressure in the environment.”
I’m not sure I understand your argument here. When you hear people say evolution is a theory that we came about by “random accident” what do you believe them to be saying? Will you elaborate?
It's taken awhile to respond to your comment because I forgot how to log on to my own blog. Please don't laugh at me.
Anyway, when people say we came about by a random accident, it's in stuff I read so I don't really have a chance to ask what they mean. By accident, I suppose they mean we came about without some being's intent, which I would agree with. It is the random part I disagree with, which suggests that all of evolution is a game of chance, which it isn't. Perhaps I am whining too much about someone's choice of words though.
BZ,
Thank you for the clarification. I do not know if I am guilty of uttering the words “random accident” in this context before, so I may not be well-suited to comment, but here are my thoughts nonetheless.
It seems we are again running into a problem of defining the word “evolution.”
Evolution as a theory is a description of how species react to the selection pressures in their environment. The theory, in and of itself, makes no judgment as to what causes species to react in such a way, it merely describes the way in which they do so. Thus, if someone labels evolution – when defined in this way – as a theory stating we came about by a “random accident”, they would be incorrect.
I think, up to this point, we would agree.
However, if someone includes the belief that “we came about without some being’s intent” in their definition of evolution, I believe it can be fairly labeled as a theory of a “random accident.” If there is no purpose to the universe, then it need not have come into existence and would thus be an “accident “(any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause, according to dictionary.com). If there is nothing guiding the process then it need not follow any particular path and would thus be “random.”
But, as you point out, the process of evolution does follow a predictable path. There is an order to the way things evolve, based upon the selection pressures in their environment. And that is one reason why I believe in a god. If there is nothing guiding the process, we shouldn’t expect it to continue following the same predictable path. It should be random. Thus, the longer the world continues to operate in an orderly fashion, the more evidence that exists suggesting something is forcing it to.
To quote Albert Einstein: “Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”
So while I agree evolution shouldn’t be labeled a theory of random accident, that’s only because I don’t include the idea that there isn’t something guiding the process in my definition.
What do you think?
Invoking God to explain the predictability of the universe doesn't solve anything, because then you have to explain God. In addition, it is unjustified even if the predictability needs some sort of cause, because the cause may not be God.
Also, despite what Einstein says, there are many serious scientists who don't believe that the laws of nature manifest some sort of spirit, although perhaps his generalization was closer to truth at the time he said it. He would've been better off claiming that he is led by his engagement in science to believe in such a thing, rather than making a blanket statement about scientists.
You might want to be careful quoting Einstein anyway. It is difficult to pin down what exactly he believed. His religious vocabulary can be misleading, as he doesn't seem to use standard definitions of some words. This makes it easy to think a quote means something it doesn't and people still debate over exactly what he meant with his language. All that is clear is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God, and found such concepts to be naive.
What do you mean when you say "you have to explain God?" I'm not sure I understand.
Also, I define the cause of the predictability of the universe as god. I think they are one and the same. Don't get me wrong, I am miles away from the God of Christian theology at this point. All I am saying is that the predictability suggests some sort of cause and I think it is fair to label that cause a "god." Augustine has a very persuasive argument about that matter, if you care to hear it sometime.
More generally, what do you think causes the predictability of nature and its laws?
As for Einstein, I am aware of the difficulty of grasping what he always means. Anthony Flew addressed the matter at length in the book I last read by him. He concludes that Einstein's rejection of a personal God was not a denial of God, which is why Einstein did not consider himself an atheist. As for what Einstein meant by a "personal God" I am not qualified to say, nor do I think it is particularly relevant to this discussion.
And as for your disagreement with his quote, I say: fair enough. I agree he is overbroad. But, I think it gives an idea about what he thinks on the matter, which is all I really cared to point out.
Well, if the predictability of the universe needs a cause or an origin, then why doesn't a god need a cause or an origin? That's what I meant by "you have to explain god". I already answered my own question; if all events of the same type follow the same rules, and there are an extremely large number of such events, there has to be something behind it because that is too much to put down to coincidence. God does not suffer from such a coincidence problem.
I think the direct cause of the predictability of the universe is obviously the laws of nature, although I'm guessing you were going deeper than that, to what makes those laws exist and stay constant. I'm not even sure that the highest laws of nature need a cause. As the laws of nature are not an enormous collection of similar events but a relatively small number of unique laws, they also do not suffer from the coincidence problem. There does seem to be a higher order to the laws of nature than we currently understand, but it is possible that at some point we will understand the laws entirely and the laws themselves may not need further explanation. Whether or not we see a need for further explanation at that point it is likely there is some sort of "first cause", except metaphysically rather than temporally. The only types of causes we could rule out are ones that would cause effects we do not see in the world, such as some theistic versions of god. The "first cause" could simply be one general law governing physical behavior, or something much closer to a Deistic concept of God that has consciousness and a large or infinite intellect. Or a group of gods or a group of laws. Or something that blurs the boundaries between those ideas. Perhaps even there is a metaphysical infinite regress where laws of nature are explained by higher laws, which are explained by even higher ones, and so on and so forth forever. This last option does not feel likely to me, but I can't give a solid reason why it could not be so.
BZ,
In your last comment, you asked the following: “Well, if the predictability of the universe needs a cause or an origin, then why doesn’t a god need a cause or an origin?”
To begin, let me point out that I am not currently arguing that the predictability of the universe needs a cause or origin; rather, I am saying it is best explained by the concept of a cause. There is an important distinction to be made between the two claims.
Now, as for the suggestion that the laws may simply exist without cause: I find this view to be logical in many respects. Any system we design has to start somewhere, it has been argued, so why not start with the existence of the universe and the laws that operate it?
At this point, let me make two observations.
First, this view cannot escape the notion of an eternally existing entity. If the laws and the matter they operate on do not have a cause, then they themselves must have always existed. Even if – as you suggested in your last comment – there could be some sort of infinite regress of laws causing new laws, all that would do is set up the infinite regress system as the eternally existing entity. I think the fact of an eternally existing entity is inescapable, and therefore must reside at the bottom of any logically-coherent system.
Second, this view can see “laws of nature” as nothing more than a description of what that eternally existing matter always does. As C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity, “When you say that falling stones always obey the law of gravitation, is not this much the same as saying that the law only means ‘what stones always do’? You do not really think that when a stone is let go, it suddenly remembers that it is under orders to fall to the ground. You only mean that, in fact, it does fall. In other words, you cannot be sure that there is anything over and above the facts themselves, any law about what ought to happen, as distinct from what does happen.” There can be nothing behind the matter itself that forces the matter to act in a particular way, because then we would be back to ascribing some sort of a cause to the laws.
Personally, I believe it is more likely that the regularity we see in nature arises from the action of something behind the laws, rather than believing that all matter simply behaves in the same way. That is – at the very least – the way most of the world seems to operate. The world tends to be quite chaotic, unless something enforces its will upon it and creates the semblance of order. However, I think reasonable people can disagree with me on this point.
Regardless, the question of whether there is something behind the laws, or whether they are simply descriptions of the way things are cannot be determined by science. Science by its very nature is limited to the observation of the physical world, so it can never tell us whether there is something behind the physical world that causes it to act in a particular way. To again quote C.S. Lewis: “We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would not be one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. That is not to denigrate science; rather it is simply an admission of its limitations.
So then, the key question is whether there is any way of determining whether there is something behind the laws or not. For that, I would turn to the law of human behavior, or the moral law, but alas, I do not have the time to fully develop the argument in my own words. If you care to read it in its entirety, I would recommend the first section of Mere Christianity. Perhaps at some point we can discuss it further.
Getting back to the subject of the post...
“There is no controversy over evolution in the scientific community. Over 99% of scientists with doctorates in the field accept evolution.”
Where did you get that statistic from? I am not disagreeing at this point, but I would be interested in how you reached that conclusion. Also, are you referring to evolution as a theory about what happened in the past, or as a theory about what happens in the present?
"Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life. Given that the first replicator, (Does not have to be, and almost definitely was not a cell or what we would understand as an organism) it explains the development of all the species on the planet to day."
Again, I’m not sure I understand your argument. You say evolution is not a theory of the origin of life, but then you go on to say that “it explains the development of all the species on the planet today.” Are you saying that evolution as a theory begins with the first living organism, and explains everything from that point on? Or are you saying something else?
I do feel compelled to point out that evolution is often used as an explanation on the origin of life, whether that is a proper usage of the theory or not.
I'm saying evolution as a theory starts with the first living thing(The first thing with the ability to reproduce itself, to be precise). It does explain the origins of today's life. I should've been more clear that I meant the first living thing by origins of life.
The 99% is an estimate, based on the comparison of two lists. The Discovery Institute has a list of over 700 scientists who signed a statement saying they are sceptical of Darwinism. I was unable to find a longer list, and since the Discovery Institute is the main ID think tank I think it is reasonable to say they probably have the biggest list of such scientists. About 1% of people in the country have a name of Steve, Steven, Stephanie, or some other derivative. http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
NCSE's project Steve was able to gather over 900 scientists named Steve or something similar that supported evolution. Since about 1% of people are named Steve, multiply it by 100 for an estimate of the number of scientists willing to sign such a statement. This leaves creationists and supporters of ID showing up at about 1% of scientists.
Well, I find the Steve study to be fairly unconvincing. I think there is more disagreement over whether evolution explains what happened in the past than your post suggests.
Nor does evolution fail the scientific criteria of reproducibility. All that is demanded is that the research and experiments can be reproduced, not that the actual historical event be reproduced. And evolution can be reproduced in the lab to a significant degree. Bacteria reproduce so fast one can cover thousands of generations in a few years.
I think your argument falls short of being convincing here. If you mean the theory of evolution, as it explains the ongoing process of adaptation of species, does not fail the scientific criteria of reproducibility, I agree with you. But you cannot use that evidence to say that the theory of evolution as an explanation of what happened in the past is therefore reproducible. You can set up experiments to mimic what may have happened in the past, and then, if it lines up with what we see in nature, use it as support for your argument of what actually happened, but any time you start trying to “prove” a historical event you have left the realm of science and moved in to history. For example, I can put forward a theory saying my sister dropped a glass of milk yesterday and it shattered when it hit the ground. I can even perform a test by dropping a glass of milk and seeing if it shattered. But, just because the test itself is reproducible does not mean my theory that my sister actually did the action in question yesterday is reproducible.
“Evolution is not untestable. Evolution could be proven false by all sorts of evidence were it to show up. If fossils for rabbits, horses, dogs, and other present day animals were discovered in the fossil record instead of the changes over time that we do see, that would be evidence against evolution instead of for it. If we find (which we do) that we share endogenous retroviruses ("Scars" on our DNA from certain types of viruses that infected our ancestor's DNA) with close descendants on the evolutionary tree, that is evidence for evolution. If such non-beneficial and random elements were not shared by our genetic cousins, that would be evidence against evolution.”
The premises here do not support your conclusion. The existence of facts that make evolution seem more or less plausible has no bearing on our ability to test whether it happened in the past, as my last point demonstrates. You are using the evidence we have found to construct an argument, not to show whether the theory is "testable" in the regular meaning of the word.
I know there's a lot of disagreement, just not in scientific circles. There's certainly disagreement over how evolution happened, but not any significant amount of disagreement over whether it did happen. Creationists love to claim how it is there, but I can never seem to find it, which is odd considering how much support is behind creationism in the general public. If you can show me something I haven't found I'll look at it, but until then I'm completely unconvinced.
Some people claim the theory of evolution is unscientific because it fails the criteria of reproducibility, but the scientific criteria of reproducibility does not refer to reproducing a historical event but to any tests or methods of gathering data. It may not be reproducible in some ways, and I won't disagree that the actual historical event itself can't be reproduced, but those ways are not what the scientific theory of reproducibility talks about. The fact that the tests are reproducible aren't meant as evidence for evolution, but rather to show that the theory doesn't fail a requirement to be scientific.
"You are using the evidence we have found to construct an argument, not to show whether the theory is "testable" in the regular meaning of the word." I supposed I didn't list tests but rather the results of tests that were already conducted. Still, it was implicit what those tests were. I said "If fossils for rabbits, horses, dogs, and other present day animals were discovered in the fossil record instead of the changes over time that we do see, that would be evidence against evolution instead of for it." Obviously the test was to look at the fossil record and see how much change was there. Scientists decided what type of data would weaken or strengthen the theory, then they went and collected the data to see if the theory would be strengthed or weakened. That is the very essence of a test.
Also, forgive if I'm wrong, but is your post claiming that because evolution as an event happened in the past, we have no way of being able to tell if it happened?
BZ,
After reflecting on this topic a bit more, and after doing a little bit more reading, I have come across a way of explaining myself a bit better.
An important distinction exists between what is commonly referred to as “operational science” and “historical science.” As you are no doubt aware, operational science sets out to understand how nature commonly behaves, while historical science seeks to explain past events. While there is a certain degree of ambiguity in defining these two types of science exactly, chemistry and physics tend toward the operational side of science, while biology, paleontology, and geology tend toward the historical.
My previous comments – upon reflection – reveal a very limited definition of the word “scientific” on my part. Up till now, when I have been saying “scientific”, I have meant “operationally scientific.” Common usage dictates that something that is located within the realm of historical science is still science, and with that in mind, I admit I was in error in saying evolution was not “scientific” without further defining the terms. However, I believe I am correct in saying evolution fits in the category of historical science, IF someone using it to try and explain what has taken place in the past.
The difficulty of the issue is that when one person says evolution is “scientific”, they may mean either of the historical or operational variety. And the opportunity for someone to use the bait-and-switch technique to place the historical theory of evolution alongside operational theories is very real.
So, in order to clarify things, I will begin to make clear the distinctions I am drawing between the operational theory of evolution, and the historical theory of evolution.
Likewise, a similar distinction needs to be made between operational and historical “tests”. The types of tests you described for the historical theory of evolution are historical tests. I would drop my objection if you agree the tests you are referring to are historical and not operational. I stand by my contention that operational tests cannot be used to determine what actually happened in the past and that people often use the bait-and-switch technique to conflate the two.
So then, I would ask you the following questions:
- Do you agree there is a significant difference between operational science and historical science?
- Do you agree there is a theory of evolution that deals with the operational side of science and a theory of evolution that deals with the historical side?
- Do you agree there is a significant difference between the types of tests one would have for operational science and for historical science?
To answer your question, no, I am not saying we cannot tell if evolution happened simply because it happened in the past. What I am saying is that because evolution happened in the past, it is in the realm of historical science and not operational science. It is not testable in the operational sense and it is not reproducible in the operational sense. These limitations make the theory of evolution (and all the historical sciences, for that matter) much less certain than operational science theories, and much more reliant upon un-provable assumptions and philosophical worldviews. “Proving” evolution as a historical event is much more akin to a forensics investigation than it is to the study of gravity. That is not to say you can’t use forensics to “prove” something, but merely observing that you “prove” something in forensics in a different way than you “prove” a reaction will occur when you mix two particular chemicals.
Furthermore, most of the arguments against intelligent design as “unscientific” I have seen, merely point out it is not scientific in the operational sense. That, I would certainly be willing to grant. However, how then would a theory of intelligent design be excluded from the realm of historical science? It would be subject to the same types of tests and the same processes as the historical theory of evolution.
Keep in mind, I say all of these things as someone who believes in intelligent design because that is where I think the evidence leads, not because I am afraid of the historical theory of evolution. While there are many people out there who are terrified of evolution being true, I would not be at all concerned if it were. I know too many Christians I respect greatly who believe the historical theory of evolution to be true to object to it on theological grounds. In another time and place I would enjoy discussing the matter with you more fully to see how you respond to some of the claims made by Michael Behe and others, to see if you cannot persuade me that the historical theory of evolution gives a better account of the facts. But, regardless of whether I land on the evolution or intelligent design side of the debate, I would still insist on the inclusion of my theory in the historical sciences and not the operational.
I will conclude my thoughts with a quote from zoologist Ariel A. Ross, from a 1986 article I happened to stumble upon:
“One of the lessons to be learned is that we should not confuse the success of what we can call immediate [operational] science with the tentativeness of historical science. Our science is not as good when dealing with the past because of unknown changes that occur with time. The further one goes back, the more difficult it can become to relate the present to what may have happened long ago. Caution warrants that immediate and historical science each be kept in its proper sphere of evaluation. Evolution, classical uniformitarianism, catastrophism, or creation, etc., may be considered to be on a par with immediate science by some, but more appropriately these are historical sciences. The success of immediate science should not be used as an excuse to bolster the inadequacies of historical science by ignoring the difference between the two. Science can provide information related to these "historical" concepts, but the difference in the degree of scientific validation between immediate and historical science should be recognized. Because of this, one should not say that the general theory of evolution is as much a fact as gravity.”
As for the level of disagreement in scientific circles on this matter: what type of evidence would you find persuasive?
My final comment, other than responses to any future responses...
"Similarly, the theory of evolution is a theory on how species originated, it has no moral implications on how humans should act."
I can only agree with this quote if the theory is not used to "explain away" God, as many people do. If someone does not believe in God because they think evolution makes God unnecessary, it may very well have moral implications.
Here in physics, operational science teaches us historical science, and vice versa. I've never run into a professor who splits them up like that, so doing so seems somewhat alien to me. I think people do not do this because it would not be practical. I know in astronomy especially this is true, splitting them up would erect unnecessary barriers. Making such a distinction for evolution is also impractical, as it covers both areas. Our observations of how evolution works now inform our analysis of how evolution happened in the past, and the historical fossil record informs our ideas on how evolution can happen.
Operational tests can be useful to determine what happened in the past. If one uses operational tests to show that something can not happen, then an obvious extension is that such a thing did not happen. I will easily admit that such tests are not sufficient to show what did happen, but they are useful for narrowing down the field for more historical tests.
I've never been one to say that intelligent design isn't scientific (at least in the sense of being able to be tested scientifically). I think it can be tested, and I think it fails the tests, except for the odd case in which the designer wanted his work to be indistinguishable from evolution.
Also, the article by Ariel Ross? If you could say which journal it was published in or where I can find it, and the same for anything else you quote in the future, that would be really handy.
As for what evidence I would deem persuasive for disagreement in scientific circles; if you could find some poll that shows significant disagreement in a representative sample of scientists, that would be convincing. Or a petition signed by scientists that has enough signatures to be significantly larger than the number that signed Project Steve, as only 1% of scientists were eligible to sign Project Steve.
"If someone does not believe in God because they think evolution makes God unnecessary, it may very well have moral implications."
I'm more worried about the ignorant people who think survival of the fittest means altruism is wrong, or that evolution justifies eugenics programs like that in Nazi Germany. Evolution might have indirect moral implications for some people, but it doesn't have any direct moral implications like some people think.
BZ,
The article by Ariel Ross was published in a 1986 journal of Origins. You can read the full article here: http://www.grisda.org/origins/13005.htm
I see no reason why it would be impractical to recognize a distinction between historical science and operations science, nor why it would erect unnecessary barriers. No one is saying one’s studies cannot cover both, nor that the same scientists cannot conduct tests in both areas. Of course operational science informs our historical science and vice versa.
What it does mean is that a scientist should recognize the fundamental difference in their results because of the strength and reliability of the evidence. For example, an operational test will only properly inform your historical science if the conditions under which the event took place were the same as the experiment. As such, you will be more certain of the results of the operational test than you will about what happened in the past, because there are fewer unknowns in the present. We are actually here…we can actually see the conditions firsthand.
I think an understanding of evidence leads to the conclusion that operational tests require fewer assumptions than historical science and thus require less caution. All I am saying is that a scientist who is involved in the historical sciences should be willing to admit there are more unknowns, more assumptions, and more variables than in the operational sciences…and thus a greater degree of uncertainty.
The problem with that Roth article is that it over generalizes and makes a bunch of assertions. It goes on about how historical science is less reliable, but that's only a general rule that doesn't hold in all cases. He has failed to show it applies to evolution. There are good reasons to think it doesn't, as evolution happens over long periods of time(More accurately, over large numbers of generations). This makes it hard to see the details of how it works operationally and limits most of those studies to creatures that are short-lived, such as bacteria and fruit flies. However, historically we have billions of years of fossil evidence that show us how things have evolved, so we can see what happened even if we can't see the how.
This article also insinuates that scientists are using the success of "immediate science" to bolster an unsteady "historical science" without showing any evidence that is so. Not only does he fail to back up his claims with evidence in what is supposed to be a scholarly journal, but his claims run contrary to my experience. When I see scientists argue for historical ideas such as common descent, they use historical evidence such as the fossil record or genetic analysis that indicates common descent. They do use "immediate science" arguments sometimes to show that evolution is possible, but that is necessary when many people claim evolution is impossible on grounds of "immediate science".
I don't see why the fact that evolution has happened over a long period of time would change the fact that more assumptions are required to say what happened in the past than what happens in the present. That is not just a "general rule" that doesn't hold in all cases...it is an absolute rule that holds in all cases. The assumption that we know what the conditions were like in the past holds in every single circumstance in which we are talking about the past.
As for your experience of scientists using historical science to back up the theory of evolution, I think you are missing Ross's point. His point is that scientists, by and large, fail to admit that there are assumptions inherent in historical science that would distinguish it from immediate science. In my experience, that is true.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I think the distinction between historical and operational science is a good one, and I think it would serve the scientific community well to acknowledge it.
Evolution is an event where some important processes take a long period of time. This makes barriers for studying it operationally, because we can't speed up time in the lab. However, studying it historically isn't as difficult in some ways, because the long periods of time required have already happened and we have a record of the process.
Historical science is not always less reliable than operational science, at least in terms of what each studies. Historical science may need to have some assumptions about what conditions were in the past, but it compensates for those by being less precise. If historical science is merely claiming evolution did happen, and not saying what exact mechanisms it happened by, then its accuracy will be on par with the claims in operational science which get into the nitty gritty details of group selection and horizontal gene transfer. If historical science tried to give equally small details about the past as operational science, then it would be an absolute rule that it was less reliable, but that isn't what scientists do.
We're not going to have to agree to disagree that "the distinction between historical and operational science is a good one" because I do agree with that statement. I disagreed with the lack of interplay between the two in response to an article that spoke of them as if the success of one was disconnected from the success of the other.
I do not understand where this idea that scientists do not get the difference between the two comes from. These ideas on how to apply evidence to theories are very basic, and I do not understand why both Roth and you think these distinctions are so novel or unrecognized. You say you find that scientists neglect these things in your experience. What is your experience with the investigation methods of scientists? Can you point out some mistakes of this nature that have been made, in a book or article I can look up to find the mistake?
BZ,
I fear my response to your last comment will be unhelpful. To answer your question, no, I don't have examples you can look up in a book somewhere, at least not right now. It's not something I've been compiling evidence on and so I don't have a list or anything like that. Furthermore, it's been awhile since I've read much material on this subject, and my memory blurs over time. So, admittedly, that makes my claims more difficult to subject to a test.
Additionally, I don't have much experience with the investigations scientists have actually performed because I am not a scientist, although as a product of our public school system and culture in general, I have a fair amount of experience with the presentation of those claims in a variety of formats. And it is in this area that I would pose my main objection, since it is the area I know best. Never in my life, either in listening to scientists discussing evolution on the radio, or on television, or in a science classroom, or in a book on the subject (of which I have read several) have I ever heard the distinction between operational and historical science mentioned. Nor have I ever heard any discussion of the fact that historical science is more reliant on assumptions, or must compensate for these assumptions by making less precise conclusions. In general, when they are presented, they are presented in the same way other theories such as gravity are presented. And while you are correct in pointing out that some operational studies are not always extremely reliable because of the degree of specificity they try to reach, these are not generally the type of scientific studies being discussed by the public at large or in schools.
So, I do think there is a lack of understanding of the difference between these two types of science on behalf of the general public, and I think it can be attributed to a lack of explanation on behalf of those who are presenting the evidence.
I hope in the future I can provide you with more concrete examples to discuss, but alas, I do not have the time at present to go out and do the research.
What exactly do you think scientists should say when explaining evolution to acknowledge the difference between operational and historical science?
Also, I found this study. http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/FinalWebPost.pdf?docID=861
It backs me up in my claim that scientists overwhelmingly support evolution, with very little dissent in favor of intelligent design.
Well, without actually writing a lesson plan, I think a good start would be for schools to actually point out that there exists these two broad categories of study within the scientific community, and that they have differences. A discussion about the implications of these two categories would be useful, such as how precision and specificity must both be taken into account and what types of evidence are used to support the conclusions and how they are used. Much of what we have discussed in this thread could weave it's way into such a lesson.
And I cannot stress the point enough, acknowledging the distinction in no way means evolution is wrong. It is simply a discussion of the limitations of science; what it can and cannot do and what the evidence can and cannot prove.
The article you linked to in your last comment had a section on how scientists can do a better job of showing how religion and science are compatible. I think discussing the limitations of science would be a useful contribution to that end, as would pointing out that the study of evolution, properly understood, says nothing about what caused things to happen the way they did, merely that they are our best conclusions about what, in fact, did happen.
I realize that these comments are quite old, but I wanted to thank both BZ and Ryan for their time and efforts in their responses. I found this thread most interesting, though I cannot say I have anything of interest to really add.
I will add another misconception of evolution that I find prevalent even in some academic communities; namely that human beings are "the most evolved" organisms. Regardless of your religious beliefs, the theory of evolution does not favor any particular path except those that lead to reproductive success. The increase neurolation of human beings has proved to be a great asset to humanity, but from an evolutionary standpoint humans are no more evolved than the cockroach.
Post a Comment