Chamber of Commerce Wants to Put Evolution on Trial
John T. Scopes
The US Chamber of Commerce has come up with the bizarre idea that we should hold a trial about whether or not climate change is real. Interestingly, they came up with the same analogy I did:
Chamber officials say it would be “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” — complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.
“It would be evolution versus creationism,” said William Kovacs, the chamber’s senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. “It would be the science of climate change on trial.”
The thing people forget about the Scopes Monkey Trial is that Scopes and Clarence Darrow lost the case. William Jennings Bryan and the creationists won. In part because the legal issues at hand were not identical to the scientific issues in the creationism versus evolution debate. But mostly because a jury of twelve laypeople is not actually an ideal way of resolving scientific disputes. Which should be pretty obvious.
Of course it’s a bit difficult to know exactly where the irony lies here because what the Chamber wants is basically the equivalent of a creationist victory. Unable to carry the day in an actual scientific research process, they’re trying to transfer the battle to the court of public opinion or to the inappropriate venue of a adversarial trial. And they might win. US public opinion remains, despite the evidence, pretty skeptical of evolution and there’s every reason to think that well-financed and irresponsible elites can, if they so choose, continue to induce public confusion on the climate issue. It’s just, you know, irresponsible of them to do so. You’d think that even the business types who make up the Chamber would have some level of concern for their kids and grandkids.
97 Responses to “Chamber of Commerce Wants to Put Evolution on Trial”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 25th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
The Scopes Trial proved that Man is not Nature’s last word on the subject. A “trial” on Climate Change would just point out that the transition to something else will be sooner rather than later.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
You’d think that even the business types who make up the Chamber would have some level of concern for their kids and grandkids.
Oh, of course they do. That’s what this is all about — concern for their children and grandchildren and the estates they’ll be inheriting.
It’s our kids and grandkids they don’t give a shit about.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Matt,
If we persist in our stiff-necked denial of anthropogenic global warming, eventually the rest of the world will decide that the planet needs a little nuclear winter to cool things off and choose US soil for the matter to be aerosolized.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I believe that Evolution has made a number of errors, but I consider them misdemeanors; not serious enough to warrant a felony trial. I am particularly upset at Evolution for putting too much emphasis on herding.
But, alas, it takes Evolution so long to answer my complaint that it will be many generations before the issue is decided.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
You’d think that even the business types who make up the Chamber would have some level of concern for their kids and grandkids.
That sort of attitude won’t get you promoted out of middle management.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
*cough* judicial activism
*cough* frivolous lawsuit
remember when the chamber was against these things?
August 25th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
As long as we can put free-market capitalism next on the docket, I’m down.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Darrow lost the Scopes trial because it was obvious that his client violated the law that prohibited the teaching of evolution. Darrow’s defense was based on jury nullification, which was a long shot at best. So its not clear whether the jury disavowed evolution, because they were charged with determining whether or not Scopes taught evolution, not whether evolution was the valid theory of creation.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
It’s a deal, as long as they’re in the dock defending their particular version of “free-market capitalism”.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Chamber of Commerce = Bunch of Trained Monkeys
August 25th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Alan Dershowitz: If the curve don’t fit, you must acquit.
Although Jim Imhoff promises to find out who is actually the guilty party –in raising the thermostat.
Two words: Cow Farts
August 25th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Forget a trial. Unless you have bloody gloves, stained dresses or celebutard witnesses – no one will tune in.
How about a reality show? Nerdy scientists vs. out-of-shape business types. Drop them off in some wasteland with depleted soil, alternating extreme heat, cold, rain, wind.
I expect sky high ratings as they fight to the death!
August 25th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
When the right starts invoking the Scopes trial as a model, we have to be getting pretty close to Peak Wingnut. Surely, it’s all downhill from here.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Scientific debate is not for a Church or Court to decide.
By the way, the Earth is flat, 6000 years old, “races” shouldn’t crossbreed and Adam and Eve had dinosaurs for pets.
Oh, and if you don’t believe me, you are demonically possessed.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Why don’t we just have a vote on what the square root of 2 is?
August 25th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
“Two words: Cow Farts”
It’s actually the burps that do most (90%) of the damage. It’s just not as funny.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
In part because the legal issues at hand were not identical to the scientific issues in the creationism versus evolution debate. But mostly because a jury of twelve laypeople is not actually an ideal way of resolving scientific disputes.
Well, no, entirely because the legal issues at hand were completely different from the scientific issues. The judge instructed the jury that the only thing they were voting on was whether Scopes had taught evolution. They were explicitly not allowed to consider whether evolution was a legitimate scientific theory or not.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Why don’t we just have a vote on what the square root of 2 is?
I like it.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Jim T:
Except that the Tennessee Supreme Court on appeal ruled that the Butler Act forbidding the teaching of evolution was constitutional and not a violation of the 1st Amendment. Because it also overturned the conviction on a technicality, it wasn’t pursued further.
It wasn’t until 1968 that the Supreme Court struck down bans on teaching evolution as a violation of the 1st Amendment.
So it wasn’t just a bunch of rural Tennessee jury members, but the Supreme Court of a U.S state, one that would have been staffed by college graduates, that decided banning evolution was ok.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
This is the Chamber of Commerce that is advertising heavily against healthcare reform, even though its members are getting killed by the costs of providing healthcare to employees.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Re: “races” shouldn’t crossbreed
To clarify, this wasn’t ever, as far as I know, normative Christian doctrine. I’m unaware of any writings by any of the apostles, church fathers, popes, patriarchs or medieval doctors of the church forbidding racial intermarriage. The closest thing is the book of Ezra in the Old Testament which, at most, applied to Jews and not Christians.
The medieval church was well aware that the earth was round, though they thought (wrongly) that it was the center of the solar system.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Let us rise for His Honor, Chuck Norris.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I doubt it. Skeptical of climate change perhaps, but I can’t imagine the percentage of Americans being skeptical of the theory of evolution being over 10-15%. I’m an active Christian living in Austin, and I don’t know if I’ve ever even met someone who still doesn’t believe in evolution or who believes in a 6,000 year old Earth. Do you have any statics to back that up?
Climate change is about predicting the future, while evolution is about understanding the past. It is only natural that evolution is easier to convince people of than climate change. Americans can be pretty ignorant sometimes, but I think most of them have caught on to the whole fossil record thing.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Some creationists (Dembski, Johnson) wanted to put evolution on trial in a court of law. They got their wish in Dover where even with blatant perjury their side got their ass kicked in.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Interestingly enough, after the trial, Scopes sheepishly admitted to one of his attorneys (not Darrow, probably Arthur Hays) that he actually had not taught evolution. His class had skipped that chapter of the biology textbook. (I believe that he had either taken over the class, or had been a substitute teacher, which led to skipping the evolution chapter.) I would give you a source, but I read this for a high school term paper that I wrote more that 30 years ago and I am working from memory.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I wish you were right, Matthew in Austin. Here’s a quick summary: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/we-believe-in-evolution-and-god-.html.
Key quote: “A 2008 Gallup Poll showed that 44% of Americans reject evolution, believing instead that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.”
Not just not believing in evolution, but also not believing in the findings of geology, physics, archaeology, paleontology or basically the entire framework of science and rational thought. And, of course, the strongest predictor of reality-denying on evolution is church attendance. It’s nice that you are an active Christian who accepts the truth of evolution — but there are millions of active Christians who do not.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
The science behind evolution is much stronger than the science behind global warming.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Skeptical of climate change perhaps, but I can’t imagine the percentage of Americans being skeptical of the theory of evolution being over 10-15%. I’m an active Christian living in Austin, and I don’t know if I’ve ever even met someone who still doesn’t believe in evolution or who believes in a 6,000 year old Earth. Do you have any statics to back that up?
I can personally assure you that every other member of my extended family, virtually everyone at their churches, and most of the people at my job believe that evolution is a lie and that the Earth is 6000 years old. Though I don’t have a poll I would consider it very likely that over half of the population of many red states hold these views. You didn’t think death panels and birth certificates were the only issues where they refused to listen to things like facts and logic, did you? It is absolutely terrifying.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
A more appropriate case would be the Dover v. Kitzmiller case of 2005, when Intelligent Design got shown to be the fraudulent piece of creationist nonsense that it was, and, from accounts I’ve read (the book Monkey Girl is excellent), evolution utterly proved itself (not that it hadn’t done so for nearly 150 years before that).
I’m all for it, as long as we get an honest judge (like John Jones was in the Dover case) and not some hack or showboating idiot.
I sincerely hope they think so – it would make an honest trial all the more devastating to them.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
“To clarify, this wasn’t ever, as far as I know, normative Christian doctrine.”
I’d go farther, Hector. The early Christian church welcomed the Romans into the church. So it doesn’t seem like they had any racist intentions at all. Hell, Paul was a Roman, and it’s like he got run out of the church. Of course, time marches on, and attitudes change. So some Christians did later look back to the Old Testament to justify racism and slavery. But it’s not fair to say Christianity intended such a reinterpretation.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
“and it’s like he got run out of the church”
Oops. Should read :”and it’s NOT like he got run out of the church.”
August 25th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I took a college course on human evolution a few years back and the instructor was very entertaining when talking about her experiences with students who tried to advance creationism and deny evolution.
The Adam and Eve story is just creepy. I don’t remember hearing about them having daughters. I’d rather be descended from hominids and millions of years of evolutionary change than 6,000 years of incest, but I don’t think the indoctrination of fundamentalists includes actually thinking about what they believe—that would be the sin of knowledge.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Fostert,
Paul was (if I remember right) a Hellenized Jew by ethnicity, but a Roman Citizen. I do appreciate your general point though.
Matthew in Austin,
Unfortunately the fraction of Americans who disbelieve in evolution is closer to 40%.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
The Adam and Eve story is just creepy. I don’t remember hearing about them having daughters.
The Old Testament, being the relic of a patriarchal age, virtually always mentions people’s sons and very rarely their daughters. I was told as a kid that Adam and Eve had plenty of them, as they’d pretty much have to for the race to continue. There’s always this amusing passage:
16And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
So, he left the only place with people on earth, somehow found a wife (which would be one of his sisters), and then…builds a city. For presumably just him and his wife and son.
And don’t forget the flood reduced the world to 8 people, and each of Noah’s three sons went to a different area of the earth and started the incestual societies all over again. This was the explanation I was told for why there are different races: Shem, Ham, and Japheth were apparently Caucasian, African, and Asian, and they went to their respective areas.
Yes, lots of people believe this quite literally.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Oh, and don’t forget all the people in Adam and Eve’s era apparently lived to be 900 years old. There’s not really any explanation as to how that was possible or why that changed other than basically after the flood, God got pissed because he created people that didn’t obey him and…reduced our lifespans to 1/8 of what they used to be. You know, because he loves us.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
The Adam and Eve story is just creepy. I don’t remember hearing about them having daughters. I’d rather be descended from hominids and millions of years of evolutionary change than 6,000 years of incest, but I don’t think the indoctrination of fundamentalists includes actually thinking about what they believe—that would be the sin of knowledge.
What is interesting about that is that evolutionary biologists are pretty well convinced that all living humans can indeed trace their lineage to a common ancestor, an “Adam” or “Eve.” Though the best available evidence I seem to recall suggests that the common ancestor for men and the common ancestor for women lived about 50,000 years apart. Though if you can reconcile the historical record of the Earth with the idea that God created the world in 6 days, that’s not likely to trouble you.
I have to admit, I don’t get the fixation with how many or few Americans believe in evolution. In the U.S., if not everywhere, evolution is nothing but a cultural marker – whether you believe in it or not depends on where you grew up, who your parents were, where you were educated, and how religious you are – and has little if anything to do with actual scientific knowledge. Not to pick on Philosophy majors or Matt, but someone like Matt, for example, isn’t likely to know any more about the science behind evolution than an evolution-denying fundamentalist.
How many Americans “believe” in general relativity or quantum mechanics, I wonder? And why does it matter?
August 25th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
“Paul was (if I remember right) a Hellenized Jew by ethnicity”
He might have been a Pharisee, as mentioned in Acts. There is also speculation that his father may have been Roman, thus giving him citizenship. Regardless, the early Christians didn’t seem very concerned about his lineage. Of course, it’s safe to say that Thomas and his followers in India were not even remotely concerned about race.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
“Paul was (if I remember right) a Hellenized Jew by ethnicity”
He might have been a Pharisee, as mentioned in Acts. There is also speculation that his father may have been Roman, thus giving him citizenship. Regardless, the early Christians didn’t seem very concerned about his lineage. Of course, it’s safe to say that Thomas and his followers in India were not even remotely concerned about race.
Also tellingly, there is that bit in Acts where Peter is told to eat animals in violation of the kosher code. As you both have pointed out, I think it’s fair to say, if not inescapable, that early Christianity was much more about challenging the then-existing norms of racial exclusivity than reinforcing them, as people seem to be suggesting. Folks who point to the Old Testament passages are perfectly missing the point – those norms are precisely what early Christianity was challenging.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Adam, that’s a deeply duplicitous attack on Christians.
Pretty much all scientific evidence points toward the atmosphere being very different then than it was today. With a higher water vapor content in the atmosphere, certain parts of the spectrum would be blocked from the sun. These parts are those that cause us to age, by making our genetic code degrade. These are all very basic scientific principles, and it does not reflect well on secular humanists to promote bad science.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
If everything’s up for decision by jury, can we put the CoC on trial for its crimes against the just society?
August 25th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
How many Americans “believe” in general relativity or quantum mechanics, I wonder? And why does it matter?
I would say it matters because some of the people who deny evolution are on this crusade to try to get it out of science classes in favor of their preferred religious doctrine. Obviously everyone is free to believe what they want, but when it comes to the point where you’re actively trying to prevent kids from learning things that are objectively true I think it has to be pushed back against.
As far as the practical effects, my own personal justification is that letting kids know that something their church says is absolutely wrong might lead them to the conclusion that much of what they’re saying in other areas is wrong as well. Obviously you’re not going to eliminate religion anytime soon, but I’d much rather have intelligent Christians like Hector and less crazy fundamentalist ones like my family.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Pretty much all scientific evidence points toward the atmosphere being very different then than it was today. With a higher water vapor content in the atmosphere, certain parts of the spectrum would be blocked from the sun. These parts are those that cause us to age, by making our genetic code degrade.
I would love to see you cite some of this “evidence”, and which “parts of the spectrum” you might be referring to. I’m sure our scientists would love know that it’s possible for humans to live to 900 under certain conditions. Surely this would be huge news.
Also, fuck off. People like you have rotted the brains of nearly everyone I love, and it’s absolutely disgusting to hear justifications like this. You brainwash children, and if Jesus existed he would absolutely abhor what your religion has turned into.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I would say it matters because some of the people who deny evolution are on this crusade to try to get it out of science classes in favor of their preferred religious doctrine. Obviously everyone is free to believe what they want, but when it comes to the point where you’re actively trying to prevent kids from learning things that are objectively true I think it has to be pushed back against.
As far as the practical effects, my own personal justification is that letting kids know that something their church says is absolutely wrong might lead them to the conclusion that much of what they’re saying in other areas is wrong as well. Obviously you’re not going to eliminate religion anytime soon, but I’d much rather have intelligent Christians like Hector and less crazy fundamentalist ones like my family.
That was perhaps the goal as of the Scopes trial, but the current goal, if I understand it correctly, is not to “get [evolution] out of Science classes” but to bring creationism in and teach it alongside evolution as an alternative theory. As someone who was trained as a scientist, I do find that rather horrifying, but not nearly as horrifying as banning evolution from classrooms would be. My sense is that teaching creationism alongside evolution as an alternative theory would expose “intelligent design” for what it is.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Pretty much all scientific evidence points toward the atmosphere being very different then than it was today. With a higher water vapor content in the atmosphere, certain parts of the spectrum would be blocked from the sun. These parts are those that cause us to age, by making our genetic code degrade.
I would love to see you cite some of this “evidence”, and which “parts of the spectrum” you might be referring to. I’m sure our scientists would love know that it’s possible for humans to live to 900 under certain conditions. Surely this would be huge news.
Also, fuck off. People like you have rotted the brains of nearly everyone I love, and it’s absolutely disgusting to hear justifications like this. You brainwash children, and if Jesus existed he would absolutely abhor what your religion has turned into.
I’m pretty sure he was being facetious. At least, I hope.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I’m pretty sure he was being facetious. At least, I hope.
I hope so too. But I have a thin skin for that kind of stuff, because it’s pretty much exactly what I heard for 18 years.
That was perhaps the goal as of the Scopes trial, but the current goal, if I understand it correctly, is not to “get [evolution] out of Science classes” but to bring creationism in and teach it alongside evolution as an alternative theory.
Well, what they have in mind is that you have an obviously Christian teacher in a school full of obviously Christian teachers with a classroom of mostly obviously Christian kids. This is very common. Then you teach two possibilities: one is that God did it, which happens to be what the kids have heard their whole life and what their family and presumably the other kids believe. But of course, there’s another theory: that those damn liberal scientists think God didn’t do what Genesis clearly says he did. What a silly theory! But hey, we’re required to teach it, and keep in mind it’s just a theory and not at all proven. So be sure to make up your own mind about things, kids.
Cobb County, GA, where I lived a couple years ago (and is actually home to some fairly well-off Atlanta suburbs, not a backwoods town) famously put stickers on their textbook covers pointing out that evolution was a theory, not a fact. You know, like the theory of gravity. If that isn’t a blaring siren to tell kids “don’t believe this!” I don’t know what is. That was Newt’s district, of course.
The only reason they’re not trying to outlaw evolution from science classes is because they know they can’t get away with it. Have no doubt that is their goal.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Re: Of course, it’s safe to say that Thomas and his followers in India were not even remotely concerned about race.
Or St. Philip, one of whose converts was an Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27). Unlike (as far as I know) black African people, eunuchs _were_ considered ritually impure by the Old Testament Jews, so that passage is even more interesting. Some people make an argument for a gay-friendly church by referring to this passage.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
In practice, hugo, you’d end up with a situation where half the classrooms work like you would hope, with creationism being exposed as the silliness it is, at least in a scientific sense. In the other half, though, teachers would spend 5 minutes saying evolution said people are chimps, especially black people, and then spend the rest of the week talking about how evolution has been disproved.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Hector, out of curiosity, what’s your view on Biblical literalism? As in, is everything in the Bible the literal word of God and should be followed to the letter? My family’s fundamentalist church believes that, but says that the Old Testament doesn’t apply because Jesus’s doctrine replaced it. There’s some verse about destroying the old law used to justify this but I’m too lazy to look it up.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Cobb County, GA, where I lived a couple years ago (and is actually home to some fairly well-off Atlanta suburbs, not a backwoods town) famously put stickers on their textbook covers pointing out that evolution was a theory, not a fact.
Evolution is a theory. That is, it’s a collection of concepts, observable phenomena, and physical laws setting forth relationships that conform to empirical data and unified as a principle or set of principles that explain a class of phenomena. Of course, the existence of biological evolution in nature is also a fact, but that’s not the only, or even the most important, aspect of evolution that needs to be taught and understood.
In practice, hugo, you’d end up with a situation where half the classrooms work like you would hope, with creationism being exposed as the silliness it is, at least in a scientific sense. In the other half, though, teachers would spend 5 minutes saying evolution said people are chimps, especially black people, and then spend the rest of the week talking about how evolution has been disproved.
Well, that could just as easily be happening right now, couldn’t it? But I think you are overstating the extent to which high-(and perhaps middle-) school biology teachers consist of the type of person who would say something like that. We’re stereotyping rural Americans inappropriately based on what a few pitiful local politicians and politican-wanna-bes on school boards might do. It’s just as likely that biology teachers would resent having faux science crammed down their throats by school boards and spend the entire time mocking intelligent design.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Hector, out of curiosity, what’s your view on Biblical literalism? As in, is everything in the Bible the literal word of God and should be followed to the letter? My family’s fundamentalist church believes that, but says that the Old Testament doesn’t apply because Jesus’s doctrine replaced it. There’s some verse about destroying the old law used to justify this but I’m too lazy to look it up.
No one asked me, but St. Augustine was already highly skeptical of biblical literalism by the 4th century. He wrote that there was no need to think that one must interpret the Bible literally to the extent that it is contradicted by what we knew of the world from science and observation. And that was the 4th century.
Biblical literalism seems to me to be a fashion, not a legitimate Christian precept, and a relatively modern one at that. It is very unlikely that the people who initially wrote and read the Bible conceived of it in those terms.
Whether the Bible is divinely inspired, though, doesn’t have a ton to do with what I would consider to be Biblical literalism. Something could be divinely inspired and yet not be literally or historically “true” if it was never intended to be interpreted literally in the first place.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Evolution is a theory.
Of course it is. I know the definition of scientific terms. The point is that putting a sticker on the front of your science textbook that says “evolution is a theory, not a fact” (which as I said, was actually done where I live) is 100% intended to discredit evolution and try to get kids to not believe it. It’s misusing scientific language for political purposes.
I think you are overstating the extent to which high-(and perhaps middle-) school biology teachers consist of the type of person who would say something like that. We’re stereotyping rural Americans inappropriately based on what a few pitiful local politicians and politican-wanna-bes on school boards might do. It’s just as likely that biology teachers would resent having faux science crammed down their throats by school boards and spend the entire time mocking intelligent design.
While they probably wouldn’t spend five minutes teaching that evolution says people are chimps and then move on to the other side, I think you badly misread rural Americans. It’s not a stereotype. I’ve lived here my whole life. Cobb County is among the more educated and wealthy places here. And that’s nowhere close to what’s going on in Kansas and Texas (with Texas being particularly egregious, because so many textbook publishers make their national books based on Texas’s standards).
August 25th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
While they probably wouldn’t spend five minutes teaching that evolution says people are chimps and then move on to the other side, I think you badly misread rural Americans. It’s not a stereotype. I’ve lived here my whole life. Cobb County is among the more educated and wealthy places here. And that’s nowhere close to what’s going on in Kansas and Texas (with Texas being particularly egregious, because so many textbook publishers make their national books based on Texas’s standards).
Your points are well taken; having been raised in Brooklyn I do not claim to be any type of authority on rural Americans! I am curious though, since you bring up your upbringing – how many of your science teachers growing up explicitly badmouthed evolution in such a way that made you less likely to believe in it?
The bigger point I was trying to make before is that people who “believe” in evolution don’t generally actually know any more about it than people who don’t. It’s a cultural marker and not an asymmetry of knowledge or understanding. To me that suggests that whether enough Americans “believe” in evolution doesn’t really matter very much.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
For the sake of sanity, everyone should stop talking about “believing” in scientific theories. One is convinced, or one is for some bizarre reason not, but allowing the debate to remain in the context of beliefs only reinforces the creationist pov. I’m not referring to anyone here, I’ve just heard a lot of people say that they “believe in evolution” which is nearly as backward as believing a fairy tale and “evidence” of the veracity of that fairy tale.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Whether the Bible is divinely inspired, though, doesn’t have a ton to do with what I would consider to be Biblical literalism. Something could be divinely inspired and yet not be literally or historically “true” if it was never intended to be interpreted literally in the first place.
That seems like a perfectly reasonable view, and one that I could certainly understand Christians having. Sadly, that is not the case among many southern fundamentalist denominations. And the ones driving the evolution stuff we’ve been talking about are certainly of the absurd view that God literally dictated every word of the Bible.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“Not to pick on Philosophy majors or Matt, but someone like Matt, for example, isn’t likely to know any more about the science behind evolution than an evolution-denying fundamentalist.”
I’m sorry, but that’s pure nonsense. I’m another of those loosey-goosey humanities scholars people like to pick on—English, as it happens—and I know the basic principles of evolution. An “evolution-denying fundamentalist” is very likely not to—witness all the supposed “gotcha” questions about why we haven’t seen the birth of a new species in the last few hundred years, why monkeys never give birth to people, why, if we evolved from apes, there are still apes; etc. The scientific competence of the fundamentalists who deny evolution is nowhere near that of even lay folks who accept it. That kind of relativism sounds good but has the disadvantage of being wrong.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
“We’re stereotyping rural Americans inappropriately based on what a few pitiful local politicians and politican-wanna-bes on school boards might do. It’s just as likely that biology teachers would resent having faux science crammed down their throats by school boards and spend the entire time mocking intelligent design.”
The character of rural schoolteachers is irrelevant here. Science education should based on our best scientific understanding, not on politics. Your optimism about what teachers might choose to do does not console me, because these are not matters that we leave to the teacher’s discretion. Whether a kid learns science or thinly-disguised religion should not depend on what church his teacher happens to go to.
I really don’t understand why you’re so blasé about this. Understanding of, and “belief in,” evolution is not just a cultural marker; it’s a question of scientific fact. The fact that Democrats tend to believe in evolution and Republicans tend not to does not make it somehow unfair to insist that these are the facts as we understand them.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
witness all the supposed “gotcha” questions about why we haven’t seen the birth of a new species in the last few hundred years, why monkeys never give birth to people, why, if we evolved from apes, there are still apes; etc. The scientific competence of the fundamentalists who deny evolution is nowhere near that of even lay folks who accept it. That kind of relativism sounds good but has the disadvantage of being wrong.
Actually, those are legitimate and potentially significant (if very simplistic) questions for evolution to answer (and of course, it has answered them). Because evolution is a very well-supported and well-grounded theory, it is capable of resolving them. The ideas behind relativity and quantum theory came out of much simpler and more ridiculous thought exercises. I have heard many silly and ignorant things said in support of evolution by humanities types reflecting complete misunderstandings of the theory – what does that prove? Nothing.
By the way, I do not doubt that many non-scientists can recite the basic precepts of evolution. So can many evolution-deniers.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Also, as an aside, I don’t want schoolteachers to “spend the entire time mocking intelligent design.” I want them to spend their time teaching science. That can include dispelling myths about science, but it shouldn’t include a unit on something which scientists know to be unscientific, any more than history teachers should have to spend a unit refuting claims that (pardon the Godwin) the Holocaust didn’t happen.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Biblical literalism seems to me to be a fashion, not a legitimate Christian precept, and a relatively modern one at that. It is very unlikely that the people who initially wrote and read the Bible conceived of it in those terms.
You are correct. Biblical literalism pops up among Christian cranks from time to time through the ages, but it only became a common theological position with the rise of quasi-literate Protestant revivalism about two centuries ago. Essentially, it is an illiterate’s version of Luther’s concept of the bible, rather than church tradition, as the source of Christian belief.
The “mainline” Catholic and Protestant churches have always used the Bible as a source of Christian teaching–which is why the Catholic hierarchy could use it to pick a fight with Galilao. However, the anti-intellectualism of the literalists made them the enemies of established, hierarchal churches–which is one reason many of the first evangelicals were fierce advocates of the separation of church and state.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Your optimism about what teachers might choose to do does not console me, because these are not matters that we leave to the teacher’s discretion.
I’m not sure how to respond to that, except to say that the extent to which students learn in school is almost always left to the teacher’s discretion. I certainly do not support watering down public school curricula with faux science, but I also don’t think it’s a sign that the end is nigh. Public school curricula have always been impacted, often improperly and negatively, by cultural factors that have nothing to do with the best knowledge we have. And yet, we keep churning out intelligent and inquisitive kids who know better than to accept everything they were taught in school. Evolution in action?
August 25th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Anyone who wants to stop believing in creationism and understand evolution is going to have to face Deep Time. I love contemplating Deep Time and astrological distance, though both give me a sense of vertigo. I can see how these phenomenon would be disturbing to someone who wanted a simple view of a universe that was made by a SuperMan, but I don’t see why that should be a problem for academia at any level.
I had a third-grade teacher that did little more than preach fire and brimstone, in a public school. She would go on and on, like a lunatic about the pearly gates of heaven and Gabriel blowing is horn. The third grade totally sucked for me, but by the fourth grade, Madelaine Murray O’Hare had made her mark, and not only were we no longer forced to say the Lord’s Prayer before every class, but we girls were free to wear pants to school. As much as it looks like we’re wheeling backward, things have gotten much better.
The denial on global warming, however, is more sinister and irresponsible.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
“Actually, those are legitimate and potentially significant (if very simplistic) questions for evolution to answer (and of course, it has answered them).”
Yes, it has; for me, it answered them in sixth grade. That’s my point: we’re talking about very basic issues that those opposing evolution refuse to educate themselves on. I’ve read some of the materials displayed at the Kentucky Creation Museum, and their scientific arguments against evolution are tendentious at best and pure fantasy at worst. The people who you think we’re dealing with—educated believers who fully understand evolution but nevertheless reject it—represent a very small sliver of the creationist faction.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Yes, it has; for me, it answered them in sixth grade
Perhaps you missed your calling. I majored in biochemistry with a minor in evolution, and I can’t honestly say I really knew enough to refute all the materials in the KCM with any solid supporting basis until I was well into college. Of course, I could recite the arguments against them, but I didn’t really understand all the concepts or the science behind what I would have been saying. I can recite arguments for or against anything, which is one reason I left science for the law – I didn’t miss my calling, heh.
Anyway, I don’t think I ever suggested, as you ascribed to me, that a majority of those who reject evolution fully understood it – exactly the opposite. I’m not sure why you would ascribe that point of view to me but I certainly did not express it. I merely pointed out that many people who reject evolution are able to recite some of its most basic ordering concepts.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
It is irresponsible not to make every penny of profit possible. If future genrations want to prevent global warming, they can express their wishes in the marketplace. Not existing yet is no excuse.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“I’m not sure how to respond to that, except to say that the extent to which students learn in school is almost always left to the teacher’s discretion.”
The basic material, however, is not. An English teacher who insisted on teaching a different alphabet, a Spanish teacher who insisted that tú meant “me,” a science teacher who said that we don’t have proof that the world is round—all of these teachers would be corrected or fired, at least in a functioning school district.
More to the point, there’s a difference between taking the risk that teachers will teach untruths on their own, and mandating that they teach untruths (while we relativist, tolerant liberals say, “oh, probably they’ll do the right thing anyway”).
“I certainly do not support watering down public school curricula with faux science, but I also don’t think it’s a sign that the end is nigh.”
I hate it when people say things like this. No one here is saying “the end is nigh,” or even the non-hyperbolic equivalent. It’s disingenuous to act as though, because we’re taking a position online about something, we necessarily think it’s the most important issue on the table right now. (This gets at what I find annoying about your line of argument in general. Are you just commenting here to say, “I can’t get exercised about this issue”?)
But while the end might not be nigh, this issue does matter: 1) on its own, because truth is good; 2) as an education issue, because American children are falling behind on science (contra your claim that our schools, and particularly our science classes, are doing great); and 3) as a cultural issue, because on issues with real-life consequences, particularly the environment, we need to learn to take science as an authority rather than just another opinion. You seem to take the cultural aspect as a reason to simply let those folks do whatever they want with their kids. I would say the opposite: insofar as anti-science and anti-intellectual beliefs are part of American culture, we should work to counter them, because they are going to do us great harm down the road.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
US public opinion remains, despite the evidence, pretty skeptical of evolution and there’s every reason to think that well-financed and irresponsible elites can, if they so choose, continue to induce public confusion on the climate issue. It’s just, you know, irresponsible of them to do so. You’d think that even the business types who make up the Chamber would have some level of concern for their kids and grandkids.
It is irresponsible not to make every penny of profit possible. If future genrations want to prevent global warming, they can express their wishes in the marketplace. Not existing yet is no excuse.
Now this, on the other hand, does make me unbelievably angry. Evolution-deniers are acting out of ignorance and a misguided desire to hold onto a spiritual self and worldview that they (mistakenly, IMO) think is incompatible with the precepts of evolution. But these climate-change denialists are acting out of simple greed and pure desire short-term gratification, consequences be damned.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
The “free market”, supply side religion has more staying power than Christianity because it masquerades as reason and science.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I am curious though, since you bring up your upbringing – how many of your science teachers growing up explicitly badmouthed evolution in such a way that made you less likely to believe in it?
I was always in honors/AP classes in the best schools available (in fairly wealthy suburbs), so I had good teachers. I can’t honestly recall a single time evolution was discussed at all. I’m guessing the teachers made a conscious decision not to discuss it to avoid any problems with some of the parents. Almost literally everyone in town was in some church, and I think most of the instruction in areas like that came from church and family. It was just assumed that everyone already believed it. I would guess 95% of my high school identified as Republicans (though this was during the Newt era). But I’ve heard a lot of stories and interacted with a lot of people from nearby counties, and they were horrifying.
The point is that kids are really impressionable. And in conservative areas, a lot of kids go to fundamentalist churches regularly, their family denies evolution, and it’s just generally assumed that it’s not true. Science class is the one chance they have to learn that hey, not everything your parents and your preacher tell you is true. The anti-evolution efforts are aimed specifically at muting that opportunity.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
“I majored in biochemistry with a minor in evolution, and I can’t honestly say I really knew enough to refute all the materials in the KCM with any solid supporting basis until I was well into college. Of course, I could recite the arguments against them, but I didn’t really understand all the concepts or the science behind what I would have been saying.”
Excuse me? Are we taking the standard that no one “really understands” a subject until they’ve studied it at the college level? You seem to be saying that, until you’re a true expert in something, there’s no difference between being right or wrong about it. In that case, it really doesn’t matter what we teach in K-12, which seems to be your argument anyway.
I guess my position would be that, if we teach children the basic points about evolution (not the “arguments” from rote, but the fundamental facts), they will be able to understand the more complicated facts later in their educations and their lives. Which is how it worked for my understanding of evolution, as well as every other school subject I’ve come to understand.
“I can recite arguments for or against anything, which is one reason I left science for the law – I didn’t miss my calling, heh.”
No, sophistry does seem to be a real strength of yours.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Almost all Americans believe devoutly in quantum mechanics. They perform a ritual affirmation of their faith each time they turn on their TV or computer.
All People who use GPS systems perform similar rituals of faith for relativity.
Knowledge and understanding are different matters, but belief, even faith, is abundant.
Their faith in quantum is probably stronger that their faith in God. Praying, pushing the button for God, is not very reliable. Well, maybe Windows users have more faith in God, but not LInux users.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Are you just commenting here to say, “I can’t get exercised about this issue”?)
Nope. And your comments are well taken. I don’t mean to be glib. I am commenting because every time there’s an evolution-related thread, we pile on with the attitude that ‘oh, those racist fundamentalist Southerners (and yes, you will see those comments upthread) are so ignorant of science.’ The truth is, though, as you astutely point out, Americans in general, including many, many liberals who “believe” in evolution, are ignorant of science and evolution in particular and that will not change because we keep “intelligent design” out of public schools. We have a lot of work to do and complaining about and making fun of creationists has little to do with it.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Almost all Americans believe devoutly in quantum mechanics. They perform a ritual affirmation of their faith each time they turn on their TV or computer.
All People who use GPS systems perform similar rituals of faith for relativity.
Knowledge and understanding are different matters, but belief, even faith, is abundant.
Their faith in quantum is probably stronger that their faith in God. Praying, pushing the button for God, is not very reliable. Well, maybe Windows users have more faith in God, but not LInux users.
Heh. Great point. Though by that logic 100% of Americans believe in evolution too! And, since no one has yet been able to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity, like Whitman, we all contradict ourselves. Come to think of it, that sounds about right.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I majored in biochemistry with a minor in evolution, and I can’t honestly say I really knew enough to refute all the materials in the KCM with any solid supporting basis until I was well into college.
Most people can’t, even those who know creationism is nonsense. The anti-evolution arguments you’re talking about are designed to be as hard to refute as possible, because they involve complicated fields in which most people don’t have training.
That’s exactly why the anti-evolution people are so odious and should be strenuously opposed. Their specific purpose is to introduce these arguments that are difficult to refute without a college education in as many arenas as possible, specifically children’s education. The goal is that they never get to the point where they ever question what they’ve been taught. If someone graduates high school “knowing” that evolution is false and the earth is 6000 years old, it’s rather unlikely they will ever abandon that belief.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
No, sophistry does seem to be a real strength of yours.
One thing I have learned from law – when your opponent resorts to name-calling, whether or not you’ve won the argument, they think you have.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I really don’t think undergraduate study is enough.
People have faith in the individual aspects of science. They have knowledge that the scientific worldview is significantly more accurate and useful than others.
I’m a physicist. My belief in evolution is mostly faith-based. I know about natural selection and genes and the idea that genes mutate. I know about DNA and RNA, but that’s about it. Once you get to the point of genes creating proteins in such a manner that they create a creature, I’m just saying hallelujah brother. What I know, is that the scientific method works. I know biologists personally. I’ve seen the process of the establishment of the state of knowledge, and I trust it to function well, given enough time and effort.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Not necessarily. Those who accept they need a new flu shot every year do, but I’m not sure there is much acceptance by other means, and certainly not on a daily basis.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
I really don’t think undergraduate study is enough.
People have faith in the individual aspects of science. They have knowledge that the scientific worldview is significantly more accurate and useful than others.
I’m a physicist. My belief in evolution is mostly faith-based. I know about natural selection and genes and the idea that genes mutate. I know about DNA and RNA, but that’s about it. Once you get to the point of genes creating proteins in such a manner that they create a creature, I’m just saying hallelujah brother. What I know, is that the scientific method works. I know biologists personally. I’ve seen the process of the establishment of the state of knowledge, and I trust it to function well, given enough time and effort.
Exactly. Couldn’t agree more. That’s why the most important thing we can teach school children in science is the scientific method and the process of how science works and moves forward, not any particular aspect of that. You learn that, you don’t doubt evolution, and you don’t doubt climate change because you understand and believe in the process by which those consensuses (consenses? consensi? showing my ignorance here!) were generated.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Not necessarily. Those who accept they need a new flu shot every year do, but I’m not sure there is much acceptance by other means, and certainly not on a daily basis.
Sure there is. Every time we procreate, check out a tall and attractive member of the opposite sex, go to church, forego the antibacterial soap, take the whole bottle of antibiotics, pay through the nose to send our kids to college, loan our cousin money, pet our dog or feed our cat, struggle with our weight, beam when someone tells us our young children look like us…
August 25th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Not sure facts are relevant to this discussion, but I think the CoC isn’t really seeking a trial in court, a la Scopes but a formal hearing, with EPA acting as judge and jury.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
I’m all for it. They’ll lose, formally.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
“I’m a physicist. My belief in evolution is mostly faith-based.”
I’m with you on that. Although I hesitate to use the word ‘faith.’ I’m an engineer, but I majored in physics. I certainly don’t know if evolution is entirely true. But I do know that scientific method produces the best answers that we can get. In physics, we’ve learned that a lot of previous theories were wrong. But we also know that those theories produced the best explanation for what we could observe at the time. We can observe more now, so we discover new shortcomings in our theories. And we produce new theories that explain what was previously known and also what is newly known. But one thing we never do is ignore new observations if they conflict with previous theories. I know biologists do the same thing, so I know that while they don’t have all the answers yet (If they did, they’d stop their research), they do have the best answers because they used the best process. And that’s something a lot of non-scientists don’t really get. Science is not a set of answers, it is a process for answering questions. And the process starts by asking a question and then figuring out how to answer it without regard to what the answer is. The problem with Creationism and climate change denial is that they start with an answer and work backwards to find a way to create that answer.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
The ideas behind relativity and quantum theory came out of much simpler and more ridiculous thought exercises.
Actually, evolution and natural selection have been termed the greatest simple idea ever. The idea of evolution precedes Darwin. His grandfather Erasmus Darwin was an advocate of the idea at least 50 years before Charles. Charles great contribution, which gave the theory real legs was natural selection. Darwin could have come up with it without ever leaving his study. Of course, he wouldn’t have had anywhere near the physical evidence to back it. Many of his contemporaries are quoted as having kicked themselves because they missed such an obvious idea.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
“I’m a physicist. My belief in evolution is mostly faith-based.”
I understand where this is coming from, but I disagree with the line of thought. I think it is too great a reduction of the word “faith”. Surely “faith” means more than just not having complete and utter-understanding of something. Shouldn’t faith involve a necessary suspension of belief – that is, requiring that some degree of reason be set aside?
For instance, if a stranger tells me a mole on my elbow is cancerous, and I am completely ignorant of the medical issues involved, I would have to have a great deal more “faith” in his opinion than that a panel of 10 highly trained doctors.: there is just no good reason to believe he knows what he is talking about.
I suppose it may be necessary to qualify what degree of “faith” we are talking about. I have little knowledge of engineering, and take it on “faith” that those who have designed airplanes do, yet that faith seems a lot stronger than the faith that angels or demons are acting upon its wings.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:36 am
I think the Chamber/biz leader types just assume that they can buy their kids way out of climate trouble.
They’ll live in bubbles, the 21st century equivalent of gated communities. I’m pretty sure they’ll find out they are hopelessly wrong.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:18 am
I agree with fostert here.
I’m all for a social model of scientific consensus. As Njorl says, none of us can know everything by direct experience. Trusting the process itself is a big factor. My belief in the Big Bang, for instance, is entirely based on trust — though I have to admit that it’s not a very strong belief!
Evolution is in a different category, though, because the evidence is considerably more accessible to direct inspection than cosmological evidence. I’ve seen fossils in the ground, and in museums. I’ve seen artificial selection at work in my own backyard. Natural selection is a very intuitive extension of artificial selection.
In short, you really don’t have to know anything about genes or DNA to see that natural selection offers an extremely powerful explanation for the history of life. After all, Darwin himself knew nothing about genes.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Sorry — I’m agreeing with Eli, not fostert.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Look, I’ll say it again. The case for evolution is rock solid scientifically. The fossil record is nicely backed up by Mendel and the whole field of genetics. The case in Dover was indisputable. But we can’t do anything like that with global warming. The scientific case for climate change is filled with holes. As someone said, climate change is about predicting the future and the future is never scientific fact. Our climate predictions cannot be tested in a laboratory with the scientific method, they can only be simulated on a computer. We should recognize that this field of research is only 30 years old and not yet fully understood. Discussion of the problems that exist with the science is much more interesting than shrill proclamations about stupid people and the end of the world.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:50 am
I’d argue the difference with the “faith” in evolution is that you know that it’s believed to be true due to a massive aggregate of scientific evidence, and (theoretically), you could go, examine, and test it yourself. It’s quite different from religious faith – you can’t exactly run Jesus through a double-blind test.
As for the kids, I think it’s very important to confront creationist nonsense in the public schools, and if the teachers won’t do it (or don’t know enough themselves), then we need more training for them. It’s not like they’re not going to run into this stuff in college, either, if they have to take a science-class at some point (or not even that – I took a Biological Anthropology course, and the entire first chapter of the textbook basically explained evolution and directly attacked and refuted creationist arguments against it).
As for my personal experience, when I took biology, the teacher believed it, but only talked about it for a little while, and then went back to talking about taxology, ecosystems, and the like. Since I already had read a lot about evolution and biology, I remember finding that frustrating, thinking “Oh, come on. Virtually every other chapter in the textbook talks about mechanisms that tie into evolution, but we’re getting squeamish about the one chapter that summarizes some of the key points? Talk about missing the forest for the trees”.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:53 am
I hesitate to get involved in this, but with regard to the “mitochondrial Eve” and the somewhat more speculative “Y-chromosomal Adam,” there is evidence that these two people did exist, but if they did, they never mated and lived 10s if not hundreds of thousands of years apart. The fact that the mitochondrial DNA of one person and the Y-chromosomal traits of another happen to be the only ones we are left with is on account of a genetic bottleneck that happened long after these two people lived,, probably caused by a volcanic winter.
But the evidence shows that several thousand individuals survived this bottleneck; humans were critically endangered, but just barely made it. Two individuals cannot found a species, you need at least many hundreds of people constantly trading traits with each other…
August 26th, 2009 at 1:57 am
“Sorry — I’m agreeing with Eli, not fostert.”
Well, it’s dangerous to agree with me. Especially since I’ve got you trapped. I’ll agree with Eli, Now what are you going to do?
Joking aside, Eli brings up a good point on faith. And we may be running into semantic issues more than anything. What is faith? I grew up in an Atheist scientific family, so for me, faith is when I believe something that I have not actually seen. And I’ll only have faith if they have some real experimental method to test a theory. And if their results back the theory. I won’t accept it just because someone wrote it down. But faith means different things to different people. Too many people it means acceptance beyond proof and even in opposition to it. To others, proof is fine, but the won’t look into the methods. I go into the methods as far as I can, but I can’t really understand those methods if I haven’t studied them. And mostly, I haven’t. There’s only so much time in my life. That’s why the meta-method of scientific process is so important. I can look at the biologists and feel confident that they really are seeking the truth and applying scientific methods to do it. So they really do know more about it than I. And the biologists seem to feel the same way about physicists. So my faith is quite a bit different than someone’s faith that the Earth is six thousand years old. But it’s still really faith. I don’t know for sure that some scientist doesn’t have a personal agenda. In fact, I know that many of them do. But those agendas tend to get washed out by review panels. In religious review panels, they get washed in.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:05 am
And I’ll agree with iluvcapra, so there!
Bottlenecks are a very post-Darwinian attribute to modern Biology. And they have an important effect on our evolution. And this is really where concepts of evolution have controversy. It’s not about whether evolution exists, and it’s rarely about what mechanisms might be present. It’s about the relative importance of the mechanisms. And that seems to be very much undecided. But that’s okay, at least biologists don’t have to deal with the gravity problem.
That’s a huge question in physics, and maybe we’ll get lucky and answer it before I die. But if the Large Hadron Collider doesn’t give an answer (and it probably won’t), well, it will take another century to ask the right question. And that’s the most difficult thing of science. You won’t get the answer if you ask the wrong question. And most questions are wrong. The LHC will answer thousands of questions when it’s actually running. But that doesn’t necessarily answer a lot, does it? If we ask the wrong question, the answer is useless. At this point, I think it’s more about learning what to ask. And there will always be some spinoff technology. But what we will learn is enough to justify the cost. Remember what Faraday said when they challenged him on the outrageous costs of his experiments. They questioned what it it produce. He said that he didn’t know at all what it would produce, but surely the British government could tax it. Sure enough, the British government accepted the argument. And sure enough, he was right. Look on your electricity bill, notice the taxes? Seems that strange research on trying to figure out how electricity related to magnetism paid off. Who’d have thought? And that’s not a joke, nobody even remotely thought about those possibilities. Electricity, magnetism, and motor power were all commonly known. And individual effects between them were observed and somewhat explained. But nobody had any concept that a moving magnetic field could produce a sustained current. And that surprise changed everyone’s lives. Tesla did imagine this, created it on a small scale in Colorado, and got screwed by Edison. But, still, I think he’d be impressed by Today. What we’ve done with his concepts is amazing. I think he’d love it. He’d just think it’s silly not to try to get free energy. He’d understand that there would always be costs, but he was always interested in finding where energy is.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:43 am
“But, still, I think he’d be impressed by Today. What we’ve done with his concepts is amazing. I think he’d love it.”
Ignore the comment and just look at the letters. Remarkable lineup isn’t it? “I think he’d” lined up perfectly, so it’s pretty interesting. But it’s nothing more than a stupid anomaly that can be found in any text. This is the nature of the Biblical codes. Just dumb luck. Play enough rounds of golf, you will get a hole in one. Let’s face it the odds against a blade of grass being hit by a gold ball is astronomical, but of them will get hit on a fairway shot. So of all the crazy things you could ever do as a blade of grass, who’d have thought you’d be hit by a golf ball? Yet, some do it all the time. Enough monkeys and enough time surely won’t produce ‘Hamlet’ in my lifetime. But enough blades of grass and enough golf courses means that some blades of grass will get hit by golf balls. It’s the mower they fear.
August 26th, 2009 at 7:55 am
“You’d think that even the business types who make up the Chamber would have some level of concern for their kids and grandkids.”
Yes, normal people would have a concern, since almost certainly everyone’s kids will be severely negatively impacted.
I wonder if this means our elites in this country are sick of mind, money having created a wicked brew of which they took to much.
If so, the question becomes, does society owe them assistance for their rather serious problem?
August 26th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Science is a set of techniques to improve efficiencies. It doesn’t do anything else. We make better medicines by understanding Evolution than by asserting Creation. That kind of thing.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Re: Hector, out of curiosity, what’s your view on Biblical literalism? As in, is everything in the Bible the literal word of God and should be followed to the letter?
Good question.
-I take the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles as more-or-less literal history. When it says that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, I believe it.
- I accept the visionary books (Revelation, Daniel, Esdras) as divinely inspired visions. I’m not sure how one would take them ‘literally’- they are highly allegorical by definition- but I do regard them as ‘true’, though exactly what they refer to is far from clear, except in retrospect.
- I regard the Epistles as, again, testimony from men who knew Jesus (Paul, John, Jude, Peter and whoever wrote Hebrews), and to be accepted as inspired writings. Some of the teachings therein are the products of their time and place (e.g. the stuff about women not having authority over men, and about homosexuality too) and we need to sift the wheat from the chaff by using the guidelines of tradition, reason, and experience, guided by our understanding of natural law and the teachings of Jesus.
-I regard the Old Testament as useful primarily because it prophecies Christ. The purpose of the Old Testament, for a Christian, is to serve as a prologue to the story to Christ, not to serve as a textbook of history, biology, physics or anything else. Genesis is mythology, albeit mythology of a people to whom God spoke.
As I think Vatican II said, just as Christ is simultaneously human and divine, scripture has both a divine inspiration and a human authorship. That’s why we need Tradition, Reason and Experience to sift out what is divine from what is the product of human minds.
For a concrete example, there are four different ways to interpret the book of Jonah.
Secularist- Jonah is a made-up story, and miracles don’t happen.
Concervative- Jonah is literal fact, and the miracle is that God allowed a man to survive inside a big fish.
Liberal- Jonah is a parable about tolerance, and the miracle is that God made a bigot into a tolerant fellow.
Typological- Jonah is a figure of Christ, and the miracle is that these people prophecied Christ in remarkable detail 500 years before the fact.
I would subscribe to the typological interpretation, although I think the liberal interpretation has a little truth to it as well- the conservative and secularist interpretations seem pretty dumb to me.
My beliefs about the mixture of divine and human origins of the Bible comes as much from my (slight) knowledge of early church history as from my scientific training. I don’t think you can read anything about the process by which the Bible was compiled and still be a strict fundamentalist literalist.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
The Gospels contradict each other, and there is evidence that large sections of some of them were added in later (like the ending to Mark). Look up some of Bart Ehrman’s work on this (he’s a scholar on early christianity).
August 28th, 2009 at 1:15 am
[...] Matthew Yglesias » Chamber of Commerce Wants to Put Evolution on Trial [...]