Print
Polling Data on Science and Religion
by Jason Rosenhouse
Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/polling_data_on_science_and_re.php
Chris Mooney has a link to this analysis of recent polling data. The analysis was written by David Masci. The subject: How Americans feel about science and faith. Mooney thinks the data supports the Matt Nisbet line that people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens hurt the cause. I disagree.
Here's Mooney's main comment:
The polling data described in the essay is remarkable for a couple of reasons. For example:
Are these numbers accurate!? If they are, they would seem to indicate considerable progress in America's acceptance of evolution. I had always heard it was ten percent of the population that accepts fully naturalistic evolution, and that the percentage accepting "no-changeism" was a lot closer to fifty percent. Meanwhile, only sixty-five percent of evangelicals reject evolution? I would have guessed the number was closer to eighty.
There are also some places where I am not persuaded by Masci's analysis:
Thinking that scientific developments make society better is not the same thing as holding scientists in high regard. I am not surprised that even very religious people like a steady supply of new technology and medical innovations, which is usually what people think of when they think of scientific progress. But that doesn't mean their respect extends to the process that leads to such progress, or the people behind the scenes.
However, these are not the main issues. Instead I recommend pondering this:
I think these are the paragraphs upon which Mooney bases his case. Sadly, they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. That issue, let me remind you, is whether the books of people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett help or hurt the cause of promoting good science education. Nisbet says they hurt. I say they don't.
The analysis says nothing about moderate religious people being driven over to the dark side by strong rhetoric from Dawkins et al, the point at issue in past flare-ups of this argument. Instead it tells us that among people who reject evolution, the large majority do so for religious reasons, and not based on any sober consideration of the evidence. They don't need Dawkins to tell them that evolution poses a challenge to religion, they have already figured it out for themselves. It is always nice to have hard data, but I suspect absolutely no one is surprised by this finding.
And let us not be comforted by the finding that a relatively small percentage of people perceive a conflict between science and religion. If the data is to be believed, this perceived lack of conflict is not born from any genuine lack of conflict. Rather, it is born from religious people standing with their hands on their hips saying, "Your puny science is no match for my religious biases! I will simply ignore any contrary data you throw at me!"
The data also tells us that more than three-fifths of Americans will accept the teachings of their religion over the findings of science. Reading people like Mooney and Nisbet, you get the impression that in the face of this finding the correct response is just to roll over and cower before the might of people's religious myopia. I'm picturing the scene from Blazing Saddles where Gene Wilder cautions Cleavon Little, who starts to reach for his gun as he goes to deal with the enormous, physcially formidable villain Mongo, "No, no. If you shoot him you'll only make him mad."
The desire to teach creationism in the schools is a symptom. The disease is the attitude of those sixty-four percent of the people who think their invented-from-whole-cloth religious beliefs are more reliable than the findings of science. As long as that attitude persists, there can be no long term victory for the pro-science side of these disputes. All we can do is go running pell-mell around the country, putting down one brush fire after another, patting ourselves on the back every time we manage to get a sane person elected to a red state school board. I don't mean to disparage the importance of such work, but it is not the ultimate solution to the problem.
Those attitudes, and the unflagging respect for religious faith that they entail, must be weakened. Can that be done? I don't know. It certainly isn't easy, but other Western countries have managed to do it.
But I am definitely certain that you can not weaken those attitudes by refusing to attack them.
These polls represent the state of affairs today. What got us here was not the vocal opposition to religion served up by Dawkins and the others. They are newcomers on the scene. Instead, what got us here is years of Republican pandering to the religious right, coupled with Democratic cowardice in the face of increasing challenges to church-state separation (among other factors, of course). As I have written before, it is the nicey-nice strategy of non-engagement endorsed by Mooney and Nisbett that is refuted by these polls. The strategy where you publicly attack bad religious ideas has barely been tried.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/polling_data_on_science_and_re.php
Chris Mooney has a link to this analysis of recent polling data. The analysis was written by David Masci. The subject: How Americans feel about science and faith. Mooney thinks the data supports the Matt Nisbet line that people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens hurt the cause. I disagree.Here's Mooney's main comment:
So here's my contribution: I merely wish to point out a good analysis of polling data over at Pew that strongly supports the broad Nisbet perspective. The gist: The American public doesn't generally perceive a necessary conflict between religion and science; but if you tell them there is such an either-or conflict, guess which one of the binary options they're gonna choose?
Yeah, that's right. White-beard-in-the-sky-guy--or some variation thereon.
The polling data described in the essay is remarkable for a couple of reasons. For example:
Indeed, according to a 2006 survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 42% of Americans reject the notion that life on earth evolved and believe instead that humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. Among white evangelical Protestants - many of whom regard the Bible as the inerrant word of God - 65% hold this view. Moreover, in the same poll, 21% of those surveyed say that although life has evolved, these changes were guided by a supreme being. Only a minority, about a quarter (26%) of respondents, say that they accept evolution through natural processes or natural selection alone.
Are these numbers accurate!? If they are, they would seem to indicate considerable progress in America's acceptance of evolution. I had always heard it was ten percent of the population that accepts fully naturalistic evolution, and that the percentage accepting "no-changeism" was a lot closer to fifty percent. Meanwhile, only sixty-five percent of evangelicals reject evolution? I would have guessed the number was closer to eighty.
There are also some places where I am not persuaded by Masci's analysis:
Moreover, Americans, including religious Americans, hold science and scientists in very high regard. A 2006 survey conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University found that most people (87%) think that scientific developments make society better. Among those who describe themselves as being very religious, the same number - 87% - share that opinion.
Thinking that scientific developments make society better is not the same thing as holding scientists in high regard. I am not surprised that even very religious people like a steady supply of new technology and medical innovations, which is usually what people think of when they think of scientific progress. But that doesn't mean their respect extends to the process that leads to such progress, or the people behind the scenes.
However, these are not the main issues. Instead I recommend pondering this:
When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.
This reliance on religious faith may help explain why so many people do not see science as a direct threat to religion. Only 28% of respondents in the same Time poll say that scientific advancements threaten their religious beliefs. These poll results also show that more than four-fifths of respondents (81%) say that "recent discoveries and advances" in science have not significantly impacted their religious views. In fact, 14% say that these discoveries have actually made them more religious. Only 4% say that science has made them less religious.
I think these are the paragraphs upon which Mooney bases his case. Sadly, they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. That issue, let me remind you, is whether the books of people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett help or hurt the cause of promoting good science education. Nisbet says they hurt. I say they don't.
The analysis says nothing about moderate religious people being driven over to the dark side by strong rhetoric from Dawkins et al, the point at issue in past flare-ups of this argument. Instead it tells us that among people who reject evolution, the large majority do so for religious reasons, and not based on any sober consideration of the evidence. They don't need Dawkins to tell them that evolution poses a challenge to religion, they have already figured it out for themselves. It is always nice to have hard data, but I suspect absolutely no one is surprised by this finding.
And let us not be comforted by the finding that a relatively small percentage of people perceive a conflict between science and religion. If the data is to be believed, this perceived lack of conflict is not born from any genuine lack of conflict. Rather, it is born from religious people standing with their hands on their hips saying, "Your puny science is no match for my religious biases! I will simply ignore any contrary data you throw at me!"
The data also tells us that more than three-fifths of Americans will accept the teachings of their religion over the findings of science. Reading people like Mooney and Nisbet, you get the impression that in the face of this finding the correct response is just to roll over and cower before the might of people's religious myopia. I'm picturing the scene from Blazing Saddles where Gene Wilder cautions Cleavon Little, who starts to reach for his gun as he goes to deal with the enormous, physcially formidable villain Mongo, "No, no. If you shoot him you'll only make him mad."
The desire to teach creationism in the schools is a symptom. The disease is the attitude of those sixty-four percent of the people who think their invented-from-whole-cloth religious beliefs are more reliable than the findings of science. As long as that attitude persists, there can be no long term victory for the pro-science side of these disputes. All we can do is go running pell-mell around the country, putting down one brush fire after another, patting ourselves on the back every time we manage to get a sane person elected to a red state school board. I don't mean to disparage the importance of such work, but it is not the ultimate solution to the problem.
Those attitudes, and the unflagging respect for religious faith that they entail, must be weakened. Can that be done? I don't know. It certainly isn't easy, but other Western countries have managed to do it.
But I am definitely certain that you can not weaken those attitudes by refusing to attack them.
These polls represent the state of affairs today. What got us here was not the vocal opposition to religion served up by Dawkins and the others. They are newcomers on the scene. Instead, what got us here is years of Republican pandering to the religious right, coupled with Democratic cowardice in the face of increasing challenges to church-state separation (among other factors, of course). As I have written before, it is the nicey-nice strategy of non-engagement endorsed by Mooney and Nisbett that is refuted by these polls. The strategy where you publicly attack bad religious ideas has barely been tried.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, August 31, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 44 of 44 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #66823 by A.Lex on August 31, 2007 at 4:49 pm
"The strategy where you publicly attack bad religious ideas has barely been tried."I wish I could differentiate between "good" and "bad" religious ideas. They are all crap!
Other Comments by A.Lex
3. Comment #66829 by mdowe on August 31, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I wonder. In these surveys so many people *claim* they will choose God over science, if they are forced to choose. When push comes to shove, I quite frankly think these people are talking through their hat. I propose an alternative method for the survey:All the individuals in the survey are flown to roughly 3500' in some large aircraft, and have their choice of A) a parachute -- the science solution, or B) a Bible and however much prayer they can manage in the time after they are C) pushed (or shoved) out the back of the plane. I bet that when the stakes really count, you'll get a 100% adoption of science (and if not ... well, that's natural selection at work, isn't it?)
Other Comments by mdowe
4. Comment #66833 by Serious on August 31, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Caveat: I have only read the summary above and not seen the data itself.It sounds as if
(1) most people would prefer there not to be a conflict between science and (their) religion.
(2) many religious people will cherry pick what they consider science ("good science") just as they pick what they consider religion ("good religion" as opposed to whatever manifestations of religion that the o not like)
That's unsurprising and certainly not a reason leave woolly-headed thinking unchallenged.
Leaving woolly-headed thinking unchallenged just allows it respectability and room to grow.
Allowing religious people to cherry pick "good science" is extremely dangerous because they (moderates and not) have a major impact on what is funded and taught. What Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. do is most important.
Other Comments by Serious
5. Comment #66851 by sabre_truth on August 31, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I think the question of the choice between science and religion should be interpreted as the choice between personally accepting a claim of science or a claim of religion when there is a perceived real conflict. I doubt if many, if any, of those surveyed were answering it as if it was: If you had to choose between the elimination of all the institutions of science and all the institutions of religion, which would you choose?Other Comments by sabre_truth
6. Comment #66861 by Yorker on August 31, 2007 at 9:30 pm
In the long-term what religites believe is irrelevant, science isn't going to stop because everybody needs it, even religious hypocrites. Facts have a nasty habit of getting right in your face, refusing to be ignored and taking no account of anyone's god. Religites will simply become increasingly hypocritical to the point of hilarity as progress marches inexorably on, they know this and that's why they're vainly trying to get more political control.If they got control they wouldn't halt scientific research -- they're nuts but not entirely stupid -- emerging facts not helpful to their cause would simply be hidden from the population. I think you could safely bet they'd increase expenditure on weapons development and "security", for which science is needed of course.
I think the best policy is for us to increase the criticism and ridicule of stupid religiously based political decisions, let them know in Churchillian vein that up with this we will not put!
Other Comments by Yorker
7. Comment #66928 by n0rr1s on September 1, 2007 at 2:51 am
Comment #66861 by YorkerIn the long-term what religites believe is irrelevant, science isn't going to stop because everybody needs it
I really hope you are right about that: science is my hope for the future. However, the religites can significantly slow down progress, and when they do, many suffer as a result.
This, imo, is the main reason why the work of RD and co is so important (as opposed to convincing anyone that faith is a poor philosophy), and why I am very grateful to them for it. Most of the problems in the world can be solved by science, and it is therefore vital that it continue unfettered by the religious. I think very few religious people will understand what RD says, but by being vocal, we may gain more tolerance for atheists and a better climate in which science can thrive.
Imho, I think religion will remain as prevalent as it is now until people start getting smarter... which will happen when people start augmenting their own intelligence using the products of science.
Other Comments by n0rr1s
8. Comment #66931 by gcdavis on September 1, 2007 at 3:15 am
It is a dangerous idea to pit science against religion. You don't necessarily need science at all to come to the conclusion that religion and belief in god are irrational.You just need an enquiring mind and a healthy dose of scepticism.
A few years after realising that my christmas presents didn't come from a red suited man in the sky, I turned my attention to the white bearded one, god, and decided there wasn't one. Aged about 11 or 12 I knew little of science and didn't have parents or adults around me promoting either cause. I wasn't clever or precocious, and I have achieved little in the way of qualifications but I did (and do) prefer to think for myself and challenge received wisdom. That was the only tool that I needed. I was lucky that I lived in the UK, I realise my transition would have not been as easy if I had lived in a strongly religious society that many experience.
Of course science has provided an explanation for virtually all the questions that religion once sought to answer, however when you force people to choose between them there can be only one winner and it isn't science! Surely we should undermine religion by attacking its privileges and the spurious structures that support them. We should explain the dangers of fundamentalist belief, religious or otherwise. We should demonstrate that atheists are moral, ethical people and we don't need science to do that.
Other Comments by gcdavis
9. Comment #66951 by Corylus on September 1, 2007 at 4:53 am
The desire to teach creationism in the schools is a symptom (my emphasis). The disease is the attitude of those sixty-four percent of the people who think their invented-from-whole-cloth religious beliefs are more reliable than the findings of science.
I have been considering this possibility for a time.
See the following article about the 'Creation Museum, where the journalist interviews Ken Ham:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2872252.ece
"If you believe in millions of years of evolution and you didn't get it from the Bible, then you really do have to reinterpret Genesis, which means you are upending biblical authority," he explains. "If you are saying it really didn't happen like Genesis describes, how can you trust anything in the Bible?" Does this mean that a relaxed interpretation of parts of the Bible, Genesis included, might lead to the unravelling of Christian faith altogether? Ham likes the word "unravel". That is the point exactly. And, thereafter, the unravelling of society.
"Step back and look at the big picture. America is not as Christian as it used to be. The Ten Commandments are not where they should be, gay marriage is accepted more and more, abortion is being permitted. The big picture is that there is a loss of biblical authority in this nation and a much greater loss over in England and in Europe generally." That is the rot, as Ham sees it, which has to be reversed.
There is a deep sense of fear here. Never a productive emotion.
Ultimately I don't think this is about the validity of scientific claims contra the bible. This is about all claims contra the bible (i.e. those from literature, history etc).
I suspect that the particular venon with which scientific claims are treated is related to how they (in terms of having obvious demonstrable results) are seen as the biggest threat.
NOMA? Incommensuate levels of enquiry? Not their concern.
They don't need Dawkins to tell them that evolution poses a challenge to religion, they have already figured it out for themselves.
Well said.
Other Comments by Corylus
10. Comment #66967 by Serious on September 1, 2007 at 6:13 am
My guess is that most people don't see the point of science; the cannot imagine anything beyond the current state of science: Everything needed to be discover has already been discovered! (remember "the end of science" book?) In fact hardly anyone outside the scientific community has a clue what is already known to scientists.All we need is a bit of "common sense product development" :-(
We really badly need a lot of exceptionally good popularization of science.
Other Comments by Serious
11. Comment #66975 by NJS on September 1, 2007 at 6:42 am
Surely we should undermine religion by attacking its privileges and the spurious structures that support them. We should explain the dangers of fundamentalist belief, religious or otherwise. We should demonstrate that atheists are moral, ethical people and we don't need science to do that.
I agree but if theists just said "we have no interest or need for science" then I'd be happy to let it lie. Unfortunately thats not the case - they attack science actively and want to replace it with nonsense.
I think its abou time the links between science and technology were emphasised - to the point of denying access to the more rabid science deniers.
Other Comments by NJS
12. Comment #66991 by gcdavis on September 1, 2007 at 8:36 am
NJSThe article refers to the paradox of people approving of the benefits of science whist still retaining religious beliefs. The risk is in polarising the debate and forcing people to choose. However when push comes to shove, for instance if schools try to give equal status to Creationism and Evolution, I would agree we do have to stand up and fight for science.
Other Comments by gcdavis
13. Comment #66994 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 9:11 am
Standing up for truth has always seemed a better plan than tempering truth with lies to make it more palatable.On the other hand, people within a religion go through a process of distancing from dogma before they let it go. Hearing arguments in support of more liberal, science friendly religious positions likely makes the process less upsetting.
Before you fell a tree, you cut in a little on the opposite side, so as to guide the direction of the fall.
I had a biochemistry professor who once said, "We do teach you a few lies, because we haven't time to tell you the truth. But the lies pave the way toward the truth."
Other Comments by Dr Benway
14. Comment #67001 by robotaholic on September 1, 2007 at 9:39 am
Just like Dawkins has said many times - people who are being polled lie.. and they probably lie on poles about god more than on other poles. I'll bet religious peer pressure has alot to do with the skewed results of poles.We are more numerous than you think - and it "feels" like the religious surge is over and it's going the other way -but that's my subjective experience
Other Comments by robotaholic
15. Comment #67049 by devolved on September 1, 2007 at 2:39 pm
The conflict isn't between science and religion but between two differing interpretations of past events.1. Some scientists start with the belief that only the natural world exists.
2. Anything that appears to contradict that belief (e.g., supports an historical record that indicates the reality of the supernatural) therefore must be false.
3. Therefore, any facts supporting creation (especially biblical creation) must logically be dismissed.
1. Other scientists start with the belief that the Bible is literally true...
2. Anything that appears to contradict the Word of God therefore must be false.
3. Therefore, any facts supporting evolution must be logically dismissed...
Other Comments by devolved
16. Comment #67079 by n0rr1s on September 1, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Comment #67049 by devolvedThe conflict isn't between science and religion but between two differing interpretations of past events.
I beg to differ.
1. Some scientists start with the belief that only the natural world exists.
No scientist does that.
2. Anything that appears to contradict that belief (e.g., supports an historical record that indicates the reality of the supernatural) therefore must be false.
First of all, this is false because your first point is false. Plus, there is no historical record that indicates the reality of the supernatural. If you have some, please share.
1. Other scientists start with the belief that the Bible is literally true...
Using any accepted definition of the word "scientist", no scientist does that either. Certainly many non-scientists do, although it is clearly a ridiculous assumption to make.
So no, there isn't a conflict between "two differing interpretations of past events". There really is a conflict between between religion and science.
Other Comments by n0rr1s
17. Comment #67087 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 7:28 pm
devolved, science is concerned with finding evidence that we would not expect to find if our hypotheses are correct. This is how science moves forward. There's no progress in finding only that which you expect. Other Comments by Dr Benway
18. Comment #67102 by devolved on September 2, 2007 at 12:29 am
1. Some scientists start with the belief that only the natural world exists.
No scientist does that.
How could you possibly make such an assertion about the beliefs of all scientists? It's patently wrong.
For example look at this admission:
'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Source: Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
Other Comments by devolved
19. Comment #67103 by devolved on September 2, 2007 at 12:37 am
devolved, science is concerned with finding evidence that we would not expect to find if our hypotheses are correct. This is how science moves forward. There's no progress in finding only that which you expect.
Your point being? I fail to see how your comment relates to my first post.
I'm not even sure that you're right. Here's what one science writer said:
"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."
Source: Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works (NY: William Morrow 1986), p. 17–18.
Other Comments by devolved
20. Comment #67122 by n0rr1s on September 2, 2007 at 3:19 am
1. Some scientists start with the belief that only the natural world exists.
No scientist does that.
How could you possibly make such an assertion about the beliefs of all scientists? It's patently wrong.
Ok, my statement was imprecise (and therefore wrong). I should have said that science itself does not start with this belief. It matters not what any scientist believes to be true, the scientific method will force them to re-evaluate those beliefs if they are wrong. If they do not adhere to the scientific method, they will quickly lose credibility. If evidence against a belief comes to light, it will be judged by the whole scientific community. In this way, truth is established by evidence, and a priori assumptions are eschewed.
Other Comments by n0rr1s
21. Comment #67127 by Bertybob on September 2, 2007 at 3:50 am
Devolved #67103What you describe (or quote) is not surprising. It is largely the "Scientific Method".
Scientists do develop hunches and gut instincts, they make an hypothesis and then set off and use experiments to support their view / understanding with evidence. This evidence is then peer reviewed and accepted or rejected.
No matter how devout to the hypothesis the scientist is, he or she will get nowhere with other Scientists until they can set out their evidence. It is peer review and setting out evidence which makes Science as strong as it is.
The laws of gravity and motion did not just pop into Newton's head when he was hit on the head by an apple. He saw the apple fall which gave him the idea (if you believe the story), then the hard work starts to show by evidence (some only found after his death) that what he supposed to be true actually was.
If you make the hypothesis "God Exists", then set out on the journey and find some evidence to support this. I would not laugh at you or any scientist who wishes to do so, if you came back with some then you would be world famous.
Personally I doubt you would find any evidence of God's existence, but I would be happy to look at anything produced.
Other Comments by Bertybob
22. Comment #67153 by Dr Benway on September 2, 2007 at 8:42 am
Here's an hypothesis: All phenomena can be explained by physical processes. A hundred experiments are done. All results are explainable by physical processes. Does this lend support to the hypothesis? No.
One experiment is done, where results contradict the hypothesis. It's repeated and confirmed. The hypothesis goes in the toilet.
That's scientific progress.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
23. Comment #67221 by GoatBoy36 on September 2, 2007 at 6:06 pm
http://news.sky.com/skynews/uknewsCheck out the poll currently running on Sky News: does religion do harm? At the moment, 81 per cent say yes it does.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
24. Comment #67239 by devolved on September 2, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Comment #67127 by BertybobThe laws of gravity and motion did not just pop into Newton's head when he was hit on the head by an apple. He saw the apple fall which gave him the idea (if you believe the story), then the hard work starts to show by evidence (some only found after his death) that what he supposed to be true actually was.
OK let's run with that. Newton saw something happen and presumably he climbed a few apple trees and gave them a good shake to see if any more apples would fall down.
Sir Francis Bacon came up with a useful definition of science: "observation > induction > hypothesis > test hypothesis by experiment > proof/disproof > knowledge"
So using the criterion of seeing something happen; that is a process taking place now, can you please give me one piece of evidence to support your belief in evolution as a process that increases the genetic information content of a living organism?
(I appreciate that 'evolution' is capable of being defined in more than one way. I am proposing that we use it in the sense of the development of all life from a putative primitive source rather than simply change within a population).
Other Comments by devolved
25. Comment #67421 by aitchkay on September 3, 2007 at 11:38 am
devolved wrote:can you please give me one piece of evidence to support your belief in evolution as a process that increases the genetic information content of a living organism?Yes. Try looking up gene duplication and exon shuffling.
Other Comments by aitchkay
26. Comment #67482 by devolved on September 3, 2007 at 3:03 pm
aitchkay wroteYes. Try looking up gene duplication and exon shuffling.
Thank you. It would be really helpful if you could be more specific.
Other Comments by devolved
27. Comment #67500 by aitchkay on September 3, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Devolved - Gene duplication and exon shuffling are both very specific concepts. Or are you asking me to explain to you how to look things up on the internet? You really ought to make the effort to understand the theory you claim to be debunking.
Other Comments by aitchkay
28. Comment #67502 by Goldy on September 3, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Devolved, why would you want more proof? There's reams and reams of the stuff in journals galore. Got to Pub Med and similar, google it, go to a library, a proper museum.There's no point giving you evidence because you will not believe it. You want to see it happen before your eyes before you are convinced, which is bloody odd considering you accept the idea of a deity of which there is no proof and no evidence of proof other than a (very) few out of date man-written books.
Other Comments by Goldy
29. Comment #67503 by Goldy on September 3, 2007 at 3:53 pm
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/fawley/evolution/lecture20.PDFJust for you, dev, first google entry
Other Comments by Goldy
30. Comment #67511 by captain underpants on September 3, 2007 at 4:10 pm
devolved wrote:can you please give me one piece of evidence to support ....
Since when have you religionists been interested in evidence? You expect us to believe a dubious story about an apple and a talking snake, you expect us to believe that a man was fathered by a supernatural being without the aid of sexual intercourse. Worse still, you consider the ability to believe these things in the absence of evidence to be a virtue.
Other Comments by captain underpants
31. Comment #67527 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 5:49 pm
devolved:can you please give me one piece of evidence to support your belief in evolution as a process that increases the genetic information content of a living organism?Well, if some of our earliest ancestors were single-celled organisms, and we have more cells doing more things, that looks like more info to me.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
32. Comment #67686 by devolved on September 4, 2007 at 10:57 am
Particular thanks to Goldy for posting the link.Dr Benway makes my point admirably, "...if some of our ancestors were single-celled organisms..."
Gene duplication and exon shuffling are hotly debated. For those of you interested in debate rather than abuse you might want to follow the attached link:
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
As for believing in things for which there is no evidence we're all 'guilty'. No-one has the slightest idea how matter was organised into information systems or how life originated.
Other Comments by devolved
33. Comment #67733 by Dr Benway on September 4, 2007 at 2:52 pm
devolved:As for believing in things for which there is no evidence we're all 'guilty'.Yes. But don't take a mile when grudgingly handed an inch. We've no room for body thetans or Lord Xenu 'round here.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
34. Comment #67739 by aitchkay on September 4, 2007 at 3:03 pm
devolved wrote: Dr Benway makes my point admirably, "...if some of our ancestors were single-celled organisms..."
Do you seriously doubt it? It never ceases to amaze me how an (ostensibly) intelligent person can disbelieve a plausible theory supported by mountains of very detailed evidence, and yet - at the same time - believe in something extremely implausible for which there is no evidence at all.
devolved wrote:
Evolution? What tosh! The whole theory is full of holes! There's not enough evidence, so I simply don't believe it. Mind you, the creator of the universe IS real. He loves me. He can hear my thoughts. He gets upset when I masturbate, eat ham or worship graven images (and doing all three at the same time is a definite no-no).Ok, devolved didn't write that.
But he did write this:
Gene duplication and exon shuffling are hotly debated.
Although it is true that gene duplication and exon shuffling are processes that are not *fully* understood in *all* of their finer details (is anything?), no serious biologist doubts that they are real processes which generate new genetic information.
Did you read the material that Goldy linked for you? What did you make of it? Instead of making any genuine effort to get to grips with something that is difficult to understand, you simply assert 'that is hotly debated' and point to a creationist website which claims to be 'exposing the myth of evolution'. You appear to be saying something along the lines of - 'Science too difficult for you? Nevermind - try religion instead!'
devolved wrote:
No-one has the slightest idea how matter was organised into information systems or how life originated.Don't you mean, 'No-one, apart from the authors of Genesis....' ?
Other Comments by aitchkay
35. Comment #67745 by Goldy on September 4, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Devolved, in another life, long long ago, I was a cement bloke working in a lab for an oil service comapny. Cement is very important in sealing the pipes going down into the ground, closing off formations, deflecting drill bits etc. It is a bit of a science too as you want the cement to set when you need it to set, not before and not after the set time (bit like the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch ;-))Now, all my books had the equations and the additive mixtures and a short piece on each additive. For most of the additive (turbulence inducers, retarders and the like) there was the comment "Mechanism as yet unknown" They worked, mind. Mechanism hotly debated, but we still used them and cement scientists worked hard at figuring out why they did what they did.
Just becasue there is a hot debate, doesn't mean they are not true - just means we don't know all the ins and outs yet.
Another question - which would you trust more, something appearing in scientific papers that are peer reviewed and criticised, subject to change when new information is available or something that proper science papers will not touch, which can only be printed in pseudo science papers founded by religious organisations who have an interest in maintaining the rigid dogmatic interpretation of a "holy" book?
Other Comments by Goldy
36. Comment #68009 by devolved on September 5, 2007 at 3:09 pm
aichkay claimsAlthough it is true that gene duplication and exon shuffling are processes that are not *fully* understood in *all* of their finer details (is anything?), no serious biologist doubts that they are real processes which generate new genetic information.
There are serious biologists who profoundly disagree with you and if you want evidence I'm happy to provide it. But perhaps you only want to hear arguments you agree with? So much for science being about the pursuit of true knowledge!
Other Comments by devolved
37. Comment #68010 by Goldy on September 5, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Go on then, provide the evidence.As a scientist, I know there will be those that are for and against everything one cares to mention. Heck, even evolution has scientists against (Behe) though it has to be said they are marginalised by the greater community.
I would love to see who these scientists are - are they mainstream or slightly off centre....or even "scientists" like BizzaroDawkins' professor (deWitt, wasn't it?)?
Always good to back up a claim there and then - saves agravation afterwards!
Other Comments by Goldy
38. Comment #68014 by aitchkay on September 5, 2007 at 4:12 pm
devolved wrote:there are serious biologists who profoundly disagree with youLet me see if I can follow your 'logic' here: a few 'biologists' doubt that the processes of gene duplication and exon shuffling are real and generate new genetic information, therefore evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed, therefore Genesis gives a true account of the origins of life. Am I close?
devolved wrote:
if you want evidence I'm happy to provide it.If your evidence consists of research published in a peer-reviewed science journal, then by all means. If your 'evidence' is anything like the origins website you linked to, please don't bother. I have better things to spend my time on than ill-concieved, semi-literate, unsubstantiated, intellectually dishonest fantasies about a psychopathic sky fairy.
devolved wrote:
But perhaps you only want to hear arguments you agree with?What argument? Without evidence, you don't have one.
devolved wrote:
So much for science being about the pursuit of true knowledge!So much for true knowledge. I suspect, if push came to shove, you would choose the power of antibiotics over the power of prayer.
Other Comments by aitchkay
39. Comment #68028 by captain underpants on September 5, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Devolved -Please either
(a) go away and stay away
or
(b) provide evidence for the thesis that a man was fathered approximately 2000 years ago by a supernatural being without the aid of sexual intercourse, and that this man possessed magical powers. And it wouldn't be bad if you could also provide evidence that said man came back to life after he died and then ascended to the sky to join his father, that is to say, that he was his own father.
Shouldn't be too difficult for you.
Other Comments by captain underpants
40. Comment #68263 by devolved on September 6, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Comment #68014 by aitchkayOK so my last comment on this. I asked for "one piece of evidence to support your belief in evolution as a process that increases the genetic information content of a living organism" and instead of that I was given the means by which biologists believe increases in genetic information occur. I was also given a link to a PDF 6 page paper that did exactly the same thing. So no evidence provided.
You only want to read peer reviewed papers. Scientists who do not subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm are systematically denied access to the papers you want to read them in. Catch 22.
I have better things to spend my time on than ill-concieved, (sic) semi-literate, unsubstantiated, intellectually dishonest fantasies about a psychopathic sky fairy.
So have I, but you seem equally unwilling to read anything unless it accords with your own presuppositions. I call that regrettable.
What argument? Without evidence, you don't have one.All scientists have exactly the same evidence. All scientists interpret evidence according to their beliefs.
I suspect, if push came to shove, you would choose the power of antibiotics over the power of prayer.And I suspect that if push came to shove and the antibiotics didn't work you'd end up praying.
I'll leave you with a question. If the evolution by gene duplication theory is correct then the DNA content and gene number should increase proportionately with organism complexity, but it doesn't. Why not?
Other Comments by devolved
41. Comment #68266 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I've just been to see ken ham and I didn't think the night could get any more bizarre, but then I find devolved. Is that you running away again? Stop posting CMI junk and speak for yourself - show us that you actuallyunderstand what you are talking about, and stop lying, exon shuffling and gene duplication are not hotly debated. There is no debate, they do happen. Look up trypanosome vsg gene expression for starterd - i preume you can search for yourself - that way i'm of biasing you andI'm making you work for a change.Do you start with the assumption that fairies dont exist?
found any dinosaurs?
Science actually tests things to see which interpretation is best. Creationsts ignore facts.
Other Comments by BillySands
42. Comment #68273 by Goldy on September 6, 2007 at 3:19 pm
You only want to read peer reviewed papers. Scientists who do not subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm are systematically denied access to the papers you want to read them in. Catch 22.
I think that's a bit harsh. Peers have their agendas too and not all research the same thing as the submitter. Biblically based stuff tends to be ignored becasue it is not serious research - it is more philosophy or, for want of a better word, crap.
I notice the evidence you have is not on these pages...
Other Comments by Goldy
43. Comment #68399 by aitchkay on September 7, 2007 at 4:26 am
Devolved wrote: I asked for one piece of evidence... So no evidence provided.I'm finding it difficult to see what your objection is. Are you saying that your original question asked for evidence to show evolution occuring in a single organism? Evolution occurs over many generations - surely you understand at least that much.
devolved wrote:
Scientists who do not subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm are systematically denied access to the papers you want to read them in. Catch 22.What other paradigm, well-supported with evidence, is there to account for the diversity of life?
devolved wrote:
you seem equally unwilling to read anything unless it accords with your own presuppositions. I call that regrettable.I presuppose that god/s do not exist - I call that reasonable. You presuppose the existence of Abraham's god - I call that laughable.
devolved wrote:
And I suspect that if push came to shove and the antibiotics didn't work you'd end up praying.Perhaps. And would you construe that as evidence for god's existence?
devolved wrote:
If the evolution by gene duplication theory is correct then the DNA content and gene number should increase proportionately with organism complexity, but it doesn't. Why not?Because the initial proposition is specious. This 'knock-down' question gets trotted out by creationists regularly. Dawkins calls it 'The Information Challenge' and has thoroughly dealt with it (see A Devil's Chaplain, p107-122). Needless to say, evolutionary theory remains intact.
The question is not asked to seek information or understanding, but is another example of the following kind of 'reasoning':
I can ask a question that an evolutionist can't answer, therefore evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed, therefore the bible gives a true account of the origins of life.
I'll leave it at that, devolved. Time is precious and I'm sure you have rituals to perform, magic words to recite, divine favouritism to beg for.
Other Comments by aitchkay
44. Comment #68535 by captain underpants on September 7, 2007 at 1:10 pm
devolved wrote:OK so my last comment on this
And hopefully also your last comment on anything else here. You have not given any indication that you have even the remotest idea of what you're talking about or indeed, that you are even interested in understanding anything. Please please please fuck off and take your disgusting ideology with you.
Other Comments by captain underpants
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."
Richard Dawkins
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Seneca the Younger
"They said God was on high and he controlled the world and therefore we must pray against Satan. Well, if God controls the world, he controls Satan. For me, religion was full of misstatements and reaches of logic that I just couldn't agree with."
Gene Roddenberry
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."
David Brooks
"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10."
Unknown
Other Recommended Reading
Creationism's Trojan Horse
Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
The Moral Animal
Robert Wright
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #66822 by roach on August 31, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Mooney states: "The gist: The American public doesn't generally perceive a necessary conflict between religion and science; but if you tell them there is such an either-or conflict, guess which one of the binary options they're gonna choose?Yeah, that's right. White-beard-in-the-sky-guy--or some variation thereon."
Sure they may say that. But what if the beliefs had tangible consequences? I bet that most Americans wouldn't choose God/religion if they had to live without all the advantages granted to them by science and it's application.
I doubt more than a handful of religous Americans would say "Sure. Take the medicine, cars, planes, computers, ipods, food, clothing, houses, air conditioners, supermarkets, movie theatres, books, and all the other worldly possessions. My God will provide for me."
Our lack of perception regarding the conflict between science and religion is because we (consciously or unconsciously) place blinders on ourselves so we don't see it. This cunning self-deception makes it quite easy to have our cake and eat it too.
Other Comments by roach