[Winstonm]

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

[Elianna]

barmar, on Sep 26 2007, 12:09 PM, said:

Elianna, on Sep 26 2007, 03:02 PM, said:

a) Evolutionists do not believe that people descended from monkeys

While that is literally true, it uses semantics to obscure the truth. What is believed is that humans and monkeys descended from a common ancestor species. And based on the fossil record of the time when this split occurred, we'd recognizes this species as more monkey-like than human. It definitely didn't have any of the features that are considered to set humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, such as our higher intelligence and language ability, so we'd consider it a dumb animal.

As for the poll question, I have a hard time guessing what it will take for Americans to come to their senses. I don't understand the mentality that has gotten us into this situation in the first place. The problem is that it's very good at perpetuating itself.

But semantics is important for the students that I teach, and people I've overheard talking on the streets. They can't believe in evolution because "their grandfather was no monkey". Semantics is important to them. And just saying "common ancestor" doesn't quite get the point across, because I've discovered many kids that think that evolutionists think that monkeys can give birth to humans.

Yes, I know that they're missing other points, but I find that making that point helps them get over the fact that their grandfather was a human.

[matmat]

Elianna, on Sep 26 2007, 06:09 PM, said:

I've discovered many kids that think that evolutionists think that monkeys can give birth to humans.

they can! I hesitate to give examples, but I am certain it is true.

[Gerben42]

Quote

What I have the hardest time with students is about the age of the Earth/universe. I don't really have a good way of getting around the religious aspect, so I basically say that scientific evidence teaches us "....", and whether they believe the evidence or not is up to them (I don't say that, but I don't test them on that topic, either).

I cannot disprove that the Earth, the universe, Bridge Base Online and this forum have all been magically created 10 minutes ago.

Quote

Has physics been demonstrated? Surely there are some parts of physics that are controversial, but claiming that physics as such might be false is futile.

Physics is the study of regularity in the universe. The "Laws" of Physics is a set of rules we have made up to make prediction of the behaviour of the universe around us. These "Laws" just work because that is how they are designed, and may have nothing to with the underlying structure.

For example Newton's Laws work fine for everyday life, but they are only valid in the approximation of "large" objects (no quantum physics) and "slow" movement (compared to light speed). This means that Newton's Laws don't have any truth value in terms of structure of the universe, but nevertheless they are Good Physics ™ because they work.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Sep 27 2007, 01:03 AM, said:

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

I'm not sure if "fear" is the right word. Maybe it is. Obviously I'm not the right person to answer that question since I never had any problems with evolution. Some scientist used to believe in a super-natural creator or some such when they were children, I never did that. The ideas of an eternal soul, of a super-natural moral supervisor and of para-psychological and spiritism-like phenomena once appealed to me, but the idea of creation never did.

Daniel Denett wrote a book about your question, entitled "Darwin's dangerous idea". He observes that many people, even some biologists, have problems with the theory of natural selection and somehow seem to wish that the theory wasn't true.

I think there are many issues. Maybe the most important one is people confusing cause with justification. I once had this dialog with a very religious, but also science-literate person:
Ariel: Why are Humans on Earth?
Helene: Because it has the right temperature. Mars is too cold and Venus too hot.
Ariel (laughing): OK, very good! But why are Humans in the Universe, then?

The semantics of the word "why" is interesting. It can mean "what is the cause of ..." or it can mean "what it the moral/utilitarian justification of ...". I assumed that Ariel referred to the first meaning, but I might have been wrong. The fact that he laughed about my answer may suggest that.

Margaret Thatcher' s ideology was sometimes referred to as "social Darwinism". This is an insult to biology, as if biologists make the moral assertion that it is right/just/good that some die and others survive. Hitler's "Mein Kampf" refers to natural selection as a principle that works in nature and therefore serves as a moral guide for how human societies ought to work.

Peter Singer's A Darwinian Left addresses the issue of how to reconcile natural selection with leftist ideological imperatives such as social responsibility. I think it's an utterly absurd issue. Something like Matmat's theory of good chocolate, (how to reconcile general relativity with a taste for chocolate). One of the core messages of Singer's book:

A Darwinian Left said:

Never infer from what is Natural to what is Right

is so elementary that it should not be necessary to say it, let alone writing a book about it.

Elinanna said:

They can't believe in evolution because "their grandfather was no monkey". Semantics is important to them. And just saying "common ancestor" doesn't quite get the point across, because I've discovered many kids that think that evolutionists think that monkeys can give birth to humans.

If that's the level of public understanding of evolution, it hardly matters if people "believe" it or not. I can understand if someone says "I have no clue what the theory says and what the evidence is, so I have no opinion about it." That's how I feel about string theory, for example. What I cannot understand is that so many people, who have no clue about evolution and natural selection, still claim to have strong opinions about it.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Sep 27 2007, 06:29 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 27 2007, 01:03 AM, said:

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

Daniel Denett wrote a book about your question, entitled "Darwin's dangerous idea". He observes that many people, even some biologists, have problems with the theory of natural selection and somehow seem to wish that the theory wasn't true.


If that's the level of public understanding of evolution, it hardly matters if people "believe" it or not. I can understand if someone says "I have no clue what the theory says and what the evidence is, so I have no opinion about it." That's how I feel about string theory, for example. What I cannot understand is that so many people, who have no clue about evolution and natural selection, still claim to have strong opinions about it.

1. For most people Evolution is simple a believe or a not-believe. Neither you nor me had ever proofed this by own experience. And if you cannot proofe it, believe is all you have.

This is not true for physics in the sense of Newtons physics. You can check by yourself that apples allways fall down and that you hit someone harder if your fist is quicker. Your own experience tell you that this must be true.

2. Scientist nowadays are quite sure that we have quarks, multiple universes and other stuff. You can believe this, nearly nobody of us is able to check it personally. Some decades ago the same scientists told you that an atom is the smallest -non-dividable- unit. They had been sure about this too. But they erred. These things happen. The scientists give their best try to explain the world. And sometimes their knowledge is too small, so they err.

Of course I won´t claim that this is true for the science "evolution", but it may explain why some people don´t believe in sciences as long as they cannot proofe it by own experience.

3. If you believe that the Bible is true in a sense that each word and each sentence is true, you cannot believe that mankind lives for more then (about 7.700?) years.
Of course this is silly too, but true believers won´t argue about this.

4. In my experience the people with the strongest claims are often the with the smallest knowledge. In any field, not just evolution.

It is much easier to have a strong opinion as long as no facts shadow your view.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Sep 27 2007, 01:59 PM, said:

2. Scientist nowadays are quite sure that we have quarks, multiple universes and other stuff. You can believe this, nearly nobody of us is able to check it personally. Some decades ago the same scientists told you that an atom is the smallest -non-dividable- unit. They had been sure about this too. But they erred.

It's really very long time ago that scientist considered atoms to be non-devidable. But before the first experiments with nuclear fision, it was a reasonable theory. Even today, for most purposes atoms can be considered elementary units. This is even more true for protons, neutrons and electrons.

Of course if someone had said something like "It is completely impossible, even in a thought experiment, to subdivide protons into smaller units. If that were ever to happen, our whole theory of atoms, nuclei and particles would break down", then in retrospect we should say they were wrong. But otherwise I would not say that the discovery of quarks proved that the theory of elementary particles was erroneous, any more than the theory of relativity rendered Newton's mechanics erroneous.

There are a few examples of established scientific theories that later turned out to be wrong, and here I mean completely wrong, not just a little inaccurate or incomplete. The flogiston theory, for example. That was a theory that had to be trashed completely, unlike Newtonian mechanics which still serves as a good approximation for most purposes.

Of course there are many non-established scientific ideas that become media hypes for a couple of years for then to be unmasked as erroneous. All the stories of the kind "food X protects you against disease Y", for example. It is possible that such storries erode the public's trust in science.

The U.S. public's disbelief in evolution is a special case, though. How many people have strong disbelief in plate tectonics, the Maxwell equations, or the periodic table of the elements?

[hrothgar]

Codo, on Sep 27 2007, 02:59 PM, said:

1. For most people Evolution is simple a believe or a not-believe. Neither you nor me had ever proofed this by own experience. And if you cannot proof it, believe is all you have.

This is not true for physics in the sense of Newtons physics. You can check by yourself that apples allways fall down and that you hit someone harder if your fist is quicker. Your own experience tell you that this must be true.

First and foremost, its possible to observe the impact of mutation and natural selection each and every day. If you don't believe me, wander down to a large hospital and talk to the Doctors about drug resistant bacteria strains.

If you want a more practical example, I suggest that you take a good look at so-called "genetic" or "evolutionary" algorithms with specific reference to their use in product design. These aren't pie in the sky ivory tower techniques. People make real money using evolutionary approaches to solve very complex product design problems.

There is a good introductory treatment available at
http://www.talkorigi...alg/genalg.html

(The MathWorks sells a "Genetic Algorithms and Direct Search" Toolbox. Its a cute little product)

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Sep 27 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

First and foremost, its possible to observe the impact of mutation and natural selection each and every day.  If you don't believe me, wander down to a large hospital and talk to the Doctors about drug resistant bacteria strains.

Also, Darwin (and several others before him, although Darwin articulated the idea more clearly than others did) got the idea of evolution by looking at similarities between living species, such as the notorious Galapagos finks. Today, the World's biodiversity is much more accessible than it was then, thanks to musea, zoos and National Geographics Channel. One can even see fossils in musea. And the news are full of reports about contemporary evolution, such as how the earth worms in Chernobyl have evolved since the disaster, how fish respond to fishery etc.

But I agree that you cannot see evolution happening in nature with your own eyes.

[hotShot]

Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, this is cruel and it says that inferior races die out, while superior races live on. So this theory is not politically correct. It can be easily abused by racists to prove their superiority and to justify the killing of inferiour beings. It is easier to fight the evolution theory than to deal with it's abuse.

While scientist have no problem to see themselves as "homo sapiens sapiens" (the wise human being) some may fear that their relationship to apes is to close to be accepted. To them evolution theory is a personal threat.

[han]

helene_t, on Sep 27 2007, 08:06 AM, said:

One can even see fossils in musea.

This reminds me of one of the funnier ideas in the hitch hikers guide, where they bury dinosaur skeleton's under the earth to see how the humans would react.

[han]

I see that there is a plurality vote for "never, they are hopeless". While I agree that it is hard to imagine 95% of all US citizens to embrace evolution theory in today's world, expecting this not ever to change is quite a pessimistic view.

Maybe realistic too, but I don't want to believe it.

[hrothgar]

hotShot, on Sep 28 2007, 12:16 AM, said:

Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, this is cruel and it says that inferior races die out, while superior races live on. So this theory is not politically correct. It can be easily abused by racists to prove their superiority and to justify the killing of inferiour beings. It is easier to fight the evolution theory than to deal with it's abuse.

While scientist have no problem to see themselves as "homo sapiens sapiens" (the wise human being) some may fear that their relationship to apes is to close to be accepted. To them evolution theory is a personal threat.

I don't see legions of uber PC students from the nations leading liberal arts colleges demonstrating against the the horror that is the theory of evolution (I went to Wesleyan as an undergrad. We coined the expression "Politically Correct")

I do a very strong correlation between religious fervour and refusal to accept that evolution is true.

[cherdano]

hotShot, on Sep 27 2007, 03:16 PM, said:

Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, this is cruel and it says that inferior races die out, while superior races live on. So this theory is not politically correct. It can be easily abused by racists to prove their superiority and to justify the killing of inferiour beings. It is easier to fight the evolution theory than to deal with it's abuse.

This theory isn't politically incorrect, it is just an observation what happens in the evolution of species, it doesn't say anything about what is right and what is wrong. If someone abuses the theory of evolution to justify killings he may just as well point out that lions kill animals to eat them (which would have the added advantage that noone would deny it).

And not it is not easier to fight the theory than to deal with it's abuse. If you fight the theory for moral reasons you make a fool out of yourself because you attack a well-established theories based on a reasoning that isn't related at all to whether the theory is true or no. If you fight it's abuse then you fight a completely illogical analogy so at least you can hope that you have everyone with a rational brain will agree with you.

[Al_U_Card]

hotShot, on Sep 27 2007, 04:16 PM, said:

Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, this is cruel and it says that inferior races die out, while superior races live on.

But, ultimately, it is nature that determines what "fit" is and just what survives. We have a lot to learn and a long way to go but it is all just a grain of sand on the beach to the planet and it's existance. When we learn respect for our elders and betters (ie the planet) then we will be fit to survive.

[Winstonm]

It will take many more years of evolution before 95% or more in the U.S. accept that it is valid.

[Al_U_Card]

The level of education in the US is DECLINING as is their interest in things technical and scientific. THis suits the purposes of the powers that be so.......not much long term hope possible there.....

[helene_t]

Evolution will be (even) less obvious to future generations who have less contact with wildlife than we have today. Once my mother took a group of urban children to a farm, where they learned to slaughter and unfeather chickens. When the chicken was unfeathered, unheaded and unfooted, one of the boys said "now it starts looking like a chicken".

Next step is children reasoning "Second Life was created so I suppose the rest of the Universe was, too".

[matmat]

helene_t, on Sep 28 2007, 05:52 AM, said:

Evolution will be (even) less obvious to future generations who have less contact with wildlife than we have today. Once my mother took a group of urban children to a farm, where they learned to slaughter and unfather chickens. When the chicken was unfeathered, unheaded and unfooted, one of the boys said "now it starts looking like a chicken".

Next step is children reasoning "Second Life was created so I suppose the rest of the Universe was, too".

also, barring some sort of catastrophic event, the evolution of the human race, i believe, has substantially slowed, if not stopped.

[helene_t]

matmat, on Sep 28 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

also, barring some sort of catastrophic event, the evolution of the human race, i believe, has substantially slowed, if not stopped.

Not sure about that. The evolutionary pressure on the human genome is in many way different from what it used to be:
1) Disease resistance is less relevant as the physicians can cure you
2) Bad sperm/egg quality is less relevant as the physicians can help you
3) Homosexuality is more severe since the social pressure to become straight is less strong. Lesbians will get pregnant but a two-mother family can't afford twice as many children as a straight family can.
4) High inteligence is not advantous for women as the children of dump women will survive. Dump women are less likely to pursue a professional carriere
5) Tallness, brightness, good social skills and good look are advanteous for males since it makes them sexually attractive, and the costs of those features does not prevent them from surviving.
6) Easy-lifestyle-seeking people may chose not to have children. Opting for children requires either a perveted interpretation of Darwinism (what is good for my genes is good for me), religious faith (go forth and multiply) or a fondness for children. OTOH neglected children will still survive so maybe love for children will be less of an advantage.
7) A natural tendency to rape is no advantage since the victim will just have an abortus and rapist are not sexually attractive, especially while in prison.

Hence I think that future humans will be:
1) Less healthy
2) Less fertile (except if sperm banks become popular)
3) Less homosexual
4) Women will be dumper
5) Men will be taller, smarter, more socially skilled and better looking.
6) More religious
7) Less prone to commit rape

In particular, future bridge events will be more male-dominated, the bridge will be better, and the commercial exploiters will emphasize the sex appeal of the contestants. The pregnancy rates of bridge cheer leaders will surge. Among young women from areas with male shortage (because the males are in Iraq, in prison or killed in gang conflicts), it will become a hype to go to a junior bridge camp to get pregnant.