
Defending Darwin - hownottowrite
https://orionmagazine.org/article/defending-darwin/
======
stenl
Incredible that Darwin should need defending in any advanced country today.
I'm also a university (associate) professor and though I don't teach evolution
per se it obviously crops up now and then (I teach molecular biology, in
Sweden). None of the students ever (ever!) even as much as hinted that
evolution might be questionable.

But some of the foreign postdocs of course are religious. There was one guy
(catholic) who believed the Earth was created 4000 years ago by God including
all the evidence for evolution as a kind of mind trick on scientists. I find
it hard to understand how you can hold such weird beliefs and also be a
scientist, but it isn't very rare.

~~~
ylem
I thought the Catholic church was ok with evolution, the big bang theory, etc.

~~~
acqq
From the article:

"When I again pointed out that John Paul accepted evolution—and he certainly
wasn’t an atheist—the student countered that Catholics aren’t Christians.
Several simply let me know they will be praying for me and praying hard. One
student explained that as a devout Catholic he had no choice but to reject
evolution. He accused me of fabricating the pope’s statements. When I
explained that he could go to the Vatican website for verification or call the
Vatican to talk to a scientist, he insisted that there was no such information
available from the Vatican. He then pointed his finger at me and said the only
way he would believe me is if Pope John Paul II came to my class to confirm
these quotes face-to-face. The student then stomped out, again slamming the
auditorium door behind him."

From the Pope's mouth (2007):

[http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-
xvi/en/speeches/2007/j...](http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-
xvi/en/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore.html)

"Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce
debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as
though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the
Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead
support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because
(...) there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears
to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being
as such."

------
christophmccann
It is almost impossible to argue with the individuals who espouse these
beliefs as they expect you to prove a negative i.e. prove a higher power
doesn't exist. As the article describes, the argument also quickly devolves
into extreme defensiveness.

What makes this so bogus is the enormous weight of peer-reviewed primary
research and scientific evidence of evolutionary basis for life.

Thankfully, in the UK, a much smaller minority hold these views. I heard a
Mitt Romney speech in London once and he was asked about his view on
creationism vs evolution - he couldn't answer, but if we were to support
evolution he just lost any chances of future election. If a UK prime minister
espoused creationism, the reverse would be true.

------
japhyr
I teach high school math and science. I don't let my students use the phrase
"believe in evolution", no matter their perspective. Instead, I focus people's
attention on questions such as:

"What is the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis?"

"What happens if we only ever use one kind of antibiotic in the world?"

"Does evolution imply that a monkey gave birth to a human baby?"

Only after students have answered those questions clearly and correctly do we
enter into conversations about what it means to "believe in evolution". Once
we have clear answers to these questions, students no longer feel the need to
use that phrase.

------
cubano
People choose to believe (and to not believe) in all sorts of wacky stuff[1].

UFOs, Illuminati conspiracies, Rumpology...

But when it come to not believing in scientific theories that are obviously
standing the hard tests of the scientific method and that are making correct,
testable predictions, well, it does become somewhat frightening at that point.

Perhaps it's just social norming at work, and people find it easier to say
whatever they need to continue to fit into their social cliques. TBH, I hope
this is mostly the case, because at least then there is some method to the
madness.

Also, it's hard to not throw Hayek's Scientism[2] into the mix again
here...for too long, perhaps, Researchers have attempted to apply scientific
principles to area's of study that simply are not suited for such attempts,
thus creating a generation of layperson's who are having much easier time
dismissing anything that does not fit comfortably into their intuition due to
often-flawed research.

In any case, I am finding this same disheartening truth when I talk to people
about some of the few solid findings that neuroscience has made about our
decision-making processes, so I believe I have some direct, albeit minor,
understanding of the issue.

[1] [http://listverse.com/2013/06/12/10-bizarre-things-people-
bel...](http://listverse.com/2013/06/12/10-bizarre-things-people-believe-in/)

[2] [http://cafehayek.com/2011/12/hayek-on-scientistic-
hubris.htm...](http://cafehayek.com/2011/12/hayek-on-scientistic-hubris.html)

------
christophmccann
Also want to say - I have studied medicine. There were people on my course who
held these beliefs and fully believed what they were now being taught was
rubbish, but learnt it to "pass exams". They had done so since school. No
amount of education would or could change their viewpoint, which, for me, is
the most frightening thing.

~~~
japhyr
Do you have any sense of how these people reconciled their understanding of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria with their denial of evolution? (I assume they
are aware of the mechanics of how antibiotic-resistant bacterial populations
develop.)

~~~
IndianAstronaut
The creationist movement will have explanations for this. They also have
explanations for fossils, for distant galaxies, etc. Keep in mind the movement
has the support of a significant percentage of the US population and there are
numerous "research" institutes around the country. Many of them are very
skilled debaters who can lead the unwary into traps.

~~~
japhyr
I just googled "creationist explain antibiotic resistance". Wow. But it would
be fun to talk to some of these people!

~~~
christophmccann
Trust me, it's not fun. Its a land of denial, self-deception and complete
frustration!

------
sklivvz1971
The irony is that science itself works in the same way as biological
evolution. There are theories, variations and selective pressure
(experiments).

It so happens that clearly not understanding science becomes a prerequisite
for not accepting evolution, and understanding science implicitly makes
evolution an obvious fact.

------
keslag
Evolution is fact. Natural Selection is fact. To argue against either of these
is beyond ignorance, it's delusion. We can observe these daily, so this isn't
up for debate. The one plausible scepticism is speciation, which must be
inferred from the data as opposed to being directly observed. This is due to
the required isolation of gene pools and the time said isolation need to occur
for variants to affect the gene pool enough for two groups to diverge
sufficiently that their offspring can no longer become viable. But even this
middle stage can be observed (like horses and donkeys) where we can create
sterile offspring.

Science isn't at odds with religion, science is at odds with ignorance. If all
facts lead to a deities existence, then science would have a theory of this
deities involvement. We would then try to understand how the deity created the
universe and us. Science is simply the utilization of fact to explain the
'how'.

~~~
threatofrain
Evolution and natural selection are not facts. I understand why you use the
word fact. It's because too many people are playing word games ("belief,
opinion, theory!"), that you feel you need to counterattack by using such a
solid word like fact.

In the vernacular, fact also has another meaning: true. Not conclusively true,
not noisily true, but Simply True. Unrevisable. Unimprovable. Just Truth. And
that's the game you've decided to be a part of. "It is a FACT that I am
standing here right now." Some groups are well aware of this confounding of
terms and they deceitfully abuse it.

But facts are data points. They are the things which you combine to formulate
a theory. If all you have are facts, then all you have is a bundle of
disconnected trivia. Theory is true power over facts, but in the vernacular,
theory means opinion. Theory is weak. Theory is revisable. Theory is
improvable. How do you know your theory won't change tomorrow? But Fact is
Truth. It won't change tomorrow, or ever.

But in science, theory is power. Theory is sexiness. Theory is freedom from a
huge bundle of disconnected, incoherent facts. "You have no theory, all you
have are facts!", is a damning statement.

Historians have a lot of difficulty producing a decent theory of history. They
have tons of facts, but where's the general theory of civil war? Everything in
history is retrospective hyper-domain-specific explanation. So some people
appreciate the difficulty of theory.

Maybe if people don't play these word games, then they also lose. But I don't
currently believe that. I think the other side that plays word games is
dishonest, and that those who join with me on this opinion should resist such
immoral PR tactics. These are people who pervert the good instruments of
societal transaction and improvement, because winning is everything to them.
Whatever the damage to public relationship to science, whatever the cost to
language, whatever -- let the kids of the future clean it up after we've won
the "war".

~~~
keslag
As a college educated biologist, I understand what you're saying, even if it's
not 100% accurate. However, when discussing with laymen, you need to speak the
language of the laymen. A doctor won't tell you to take some methocarbomol
when you have a back ache, they'll tell you to take Robaxaset or a muscle
relaxant. For colloquial speech, we should be using colloquial terms. Every
field of specialization has lingo, but when interdisciplinary conversations
occur, it's better to find a common usage and understanding.

I now write software professionally, and if I didn't do this, then the number
of misunderstandings would be far far greater. I needn't make the product
owners speak using tech terms for them to understand the concepts. Getting too
technical confuses someone who has no interest in understanding the
underlaying technology.

Also, to a physicist, the statement "I am here" is not a fact. You were there,
but between the earths rotation on it's axis, the orbit of the earth around
the sun, the movement of the solar system within the galaxy, and spacial
expansion puts you in a completely different place from when you started the
statement compared to where you ended it.

In Chemistry, we're all taught the Bohr model. It's not what's actually
happening, but it's a good model to get a rudimentary understanding of orbits.

~~~
threatofrain
When I'm saying "I am here" is a fact, I'm saying that to the layperson, that
is how they express their understanding of the word. Fact is truth, and not
something to be iterated on, added to, or improved in any way. So to many,
saying that "God is a fact." is very agreeable, if not obvious.

When you talk about approximate geometry, physics, or chemistry, that is very
different from the deceitful language games being played by groups in American
society. And when we say that evolution is fact, that's not even playing the
game right, and it is said in bad faith.

When someone can equate God with Fact and get wide agreement, or agreeably
express their understanding of fact by saying, "I am here. That is fact."
(arguing against this is a trap), you will lose if you say that evolution is a
fact, because evolution cannot stand on the same place as God, and saying so
is a cultural violation.

Furthermore, facts can never be changed or improved upon, nor reframed. When
someone says that God is Fact, they mean to say that God is unquestionably
true in an unchanging and objective way. If you say that evolution is fact,
someone will ask how the THEORY of evolution has changed over time, and how a
changing theory can be fact. They are deliberately switching back and forth
between technical lingo and vernacular. If you try to elucidate with anything
less elegant than how the conversation went so far, you will lose.

This game, this abuse of language, this struggle for political power and
social configuration, is very far and apart from the pedagogical motives of
approximate models in physics, chemistry, or geometry. It is done in bad
faith. It is done as a game. And even if you were fully cynical and believed
that gaming is the right way forward, even then this is the wrong move. The
stronger play would be to instill this contrary framing of language at an
early age through an authoritative institution -- schools.

------
kailuowang
I think it's futile trying to defend Darwin in a scientific way (i.e. based on
sound logic and evidence), or based on the utility of it in current life, here
is why.

There are two possible common scenarios of people who dismiss evolution after
reasonable education:

If a people chose to dismiss evolution simply because the Bible (or some
influential people) said so, it wont make much difference to convince him
evolution, because even if you succeeded, it's just because you said so, not
based on his own independent thinking.

If a people choose to believe in God based on his own independent thinking, he
probably already chose to not using the scientific way of thinking on this
matter. And you have to respect that the scientific way isn't perfect itself
(it's mostly based on induction not undeniable logic).

The second scenario is far rarer than the first one. But with them, it's more
productive to have a more philosophical discussion than a scientific one.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
It's not futile. Christians do not have binary faith in the accuracy of the
bible. If one has doubts, they may eventually be swayed.

~~~
kailuowang
You see, that's the fundamental issue - their faith is not based on evidence,
they fact that they don't always ignore counter evidence isn't that relevant.

------
eatonphil
Only logical issue I see is his that in saying evolution is a theory _and_ a
fact this did not follow his pattern of things that are facts and theories.
For instance, he said the existence of cells is a fact and cell theory is a
reasonable way of explaining how cells function.

I guess I'm just confused because he uses the same word "evolution". It seems
like this is the same thing as saying _cells_ are a theory and a fact. But
that doesn't even make sense as far as the word "cells" goes. Wouldn't it make
more sense to say _life_ is a fact and evolution is a reasonable way of
explaining how life functions? Or something along those lines, I can't quite
wrap my head around it. Perhaps someone can explain this more clearly?

He might just be using two definitions of the word "evolution" to make a
point/sound more poetic. But this just comes off as more confusing to me.

~~~
inglor
This is a termionology issue based on what "theory" actually means in science.
Theory in science means a foundation of how we think things work. For example
people are perfectly fine with the "Theory of Gravity" being a "Theory"
although no one doubts the observable effects of gravity. In the scientific
community evolution has a similar standing.

~~~
RogerL
Right, and just to close the loop, it is a _fact_ that gravity exists, and the
theory of gravity is our current thinking of how it works and why it exists.
Likewise, it is a fact that evolution exists, and the theory of evolution is
our current understanding of how it works.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
It is worth noting that a lot of people don't seem to be taught about
gravitational theory in any reasonable depth in public school. Instead, most
are familiar with the _law_ of universal gravitation, which is an axiom
specifically in Newtonian mechanics.

Thus much of the confusion is in people not knowing the differences between
laws, theories, hypotheses and conjectures. Sloppy curricula is a large factor
in this, I think.

------
emilsedgh
_... one can accept evolution and maintain their religious beliefs. They are
not mutually exclusive._

To me its like saying I'm both Christian and Muslim. Sure, one can decide to
be whatever weird thing he/she likes, but its bizarre and does not make any
sense.

Or am I mistaken?

~~~
dash2
I grew up as a Christian and was taught evolution at Christian schools. If you
believe in the literal truth of the Bible then clearly you cannot believe in
evolution. But most Christians, at least most with any sense, do not believe
that. For example, you can be a Christian without literally believing the
story of Adam and Eve.

~~~
mirekrusin
If you don't believe literally in Adam and Eve, it implies not literally
believing in Original Sin, the inheritance of the guilt and Jesus dying on a
cross for it. The whole thing falls apart, doesn't it?

------
mercurial
This reminded me about this Paul Graham piece, where he pointed out that
people are willing to be open-minded only until the topic is one they feel is
part of their core set of beliefs (eg, religion or politics).

------
ylem
Another interesting article is:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/03/teaching_human_evolution_at_the_university_of_kentucky_there_are_some_students.html)

I like that the professor in this example tries to engage his students despite
the conflict with their religious beliefs. It seems like he sometimes has
success with it and is realistic in his expectations...

~~~
japhyr
It's the same author, and basically the same article: _This essay is adapted
from a piece originally printed in the March /April 2015 issue of Orion._

~~~
hownottowrite
Correct. I posted the original source for this very reason.

------
crimsonalucard
>This lecture should put students at ease knowing that religion and science
need not be at odds

Unfortunately, this isn't true. Evolution and certain religions may not be
directly in conflict... but science and religion? The two by definition are
fundamentally at odds.

~~~
DanBC
Christians might say that God exists in the bits we can't explain yet.

~~~
tomp
And science says that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation even for the
parts we can't explain yet.

Still at odds, fundamentally.

~~~
DanBC
No they're not! Even if science explains everything there's still room for
God.

~~~
krapp
You're defining God as a function of human ignorance.

Where exactly is this 'room for God' and why is it suspiciously never anywhere
anyone looks?

The belief alone that God can't be disproved, even with evidence, is a
fundamentally anti-scientific point of view. Once you come to the point of
science 'proving everything' but still believing in God, what are you basing
that belief on? Literally nothing.

