Reynold has said that the first people to think of and to hear of the idea of evolution were creationists. I am not inclined to agree. Sure, they openly claimed to believe in creationism. But, at the time, the church was very much in control. To do otherwise would have ended their careers -- and quite possibly invited a very unpleasant death. To anyone with an inquisitive mind creationism just does not make sense. Evolution has the advantage of making sense.
The church hierarchy was very interested in weeding out dissent. It could only do so, however, when it could recognize it. As the leaders did not think like scientists, they would not be readily able to recognize disguised heretics.
I believe large-scale evolution is held as a sacred belief. I also believe that if any scientist openly questioned it, his career would be ruined. Submissions to peer-reviewed journals would be returned unread. Now, this is testable in principle. But no scientist openly questions evolution. To test my idea, a group of scientists would need to do just that, and we could determine whether they continued to get published. The test will not be conducted. Who would put his career on the line in such a manner?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
The first people to hear or and think of a form of evolution may have been creationists in that that was the prevailing thought at the time.
Once evidence pointed in the the direction of evolution, over time, it became the new consensus.
You say:
I believe large-scale evolution is held as a sacred belief. I also believe that if any scientist openly questioned it, his career would be ruined. Submissions to peer-reviewed journals would be returned unread.
Not sure about that. If perhaps one piece of evidence was found which refuted evolution, you could be right. But surely all the evidence found in the last 150 years has pointed to evolution as the explanation for the diversity we see. If there were multiple finds which said something different, they would be accepted.
I guess what I'm saying is I dont see why you think the way science evaluates evolution is any different from how it evaluates any other area of science, or biology specifically.
This idea that theres a "sacred belief" amongst scientists seems to only relate to biology scientists. Why is that? Because it doesnt exist, evolution is evaluated (by scientists) using the same method and scrutiny and honesty that other sciences are.
Incidentally, you are right, it could be tested by having scientists submit papers which show something other than evolution. I would suggest theres a reason those papers dont exist .... theres no alternative theory with a shred of evidence.
Oranges:
I was thinking more along the lines of: if any scientist in any field should question evolution, though he remains competent in his own field, any paper he tries to publish (though it would otherwise be published) would be returned unread. Again, in principle, it could be tested. But it is far too great a risk.
More generally, I think that evolution can be fitted to any observation we might actually make. Everything I have seen as a "test" of evolution has been such that evolution was safe. Generally, they were looking for a confirming result; but a result that failed to confirm was/would be readily explained without abandoning evolution. Some things presented as "tests" (specifically to challenge me -- within blogs like these) have turned out to be experiments in which the preliminary states that only the path of evolution was being tested. Evolution was taken as a given. I have also seen the occasional "falsifier identified as such once it could be ruled out."
Now, I want to be clear. Nothing I have said is evidence that evolution is not true. It does suggest an untestability. Of course, I could be wrong. I am willing to look at any experiment that puports to put evolution on the line. I just expect that I will find more of the same.
Oh, by the way, "string theory" is another possible sacred belief. For that one, there is no evidence. By all standards, it shouldn't be called a theory at all. Evolution is just better known.
Is this not just the nature of the beast though? Evolution is not something we can observe over a short period, and prove in a simple single experiment. It is surely only evident from interpretation of many different elements. It is not that there is "proof", its that it is the only explanation which fits the evidence.
But as a layman who trusts that the scientific method will out the truth over time, I accept the scientific consensus - I have no option as I'm not a biologist never mind an evolutionary biologist, so I'm no expert and cant second guess their work or conclusions.
When biologists say that all the evidence in the last 150 years points to evolution, that it is the best explanation, and that no evidence has been found to contradict it, I accept that. IF actual evidence was found to refute evolution, not only would the scientist who discovered this evidence not be a pariah, he or she would be feted and become famous, rich even.
Actually, I think you should ask the same question of an evolutionary biologist specifically. See what they say. I suspect only an expert would be able to answer your question properly pvblivs. Maybe PZ Myers blog?
Or you could sign up to Richard Dawkins forum and ask for the evidence you seek on the evolution section of his forum. You will find many experts there, specifically the moderator Calilasseia would be able to supply whatever evidence exists.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/
At the time of Darwin, the church didn't have the political power to kill people.
If the church had the power to persecute people for going against it back then as you say, then why would the scientists back then have come up with the theory of evolution in the first place? Whether it's a "sacred belief" or backed by evidence they'd be equally screwed.
How do you think the theory of evolution got started in the first place then, if the church would go after any scientist who brought it up?
To test the idea that you brought up, the scientists would need to come up with plausible alternatives to evolution. If they couldn't back up their claims then of course they wouldn't get published. You'd just use that as an excuse to say: "See, it's a sacred belief".
What you don't realize is that the people who try to "refute" evolution are regularly publically refuted by having their works publically dissected. See the ID book reviews that the Pandas Thumb has for example. Type in the names of various creationist/ID books in their search funtion and you'll see what I mean.
It turns out that those books are loaded with factual errors and such. That's why they won't pass peer-review.
Reynold:
Evolution does not necessarily contradict an original creation -- a point commonly brought up when some fundamentalist christian says that teaching evolution is against the First Amendment because "it is the government promoting atheism." In the same manner that you said these scientists were creationists, they proposed that evolution was something that happened within "creation."
It's actually an interesting point. If evolution is as incompatible with creation as you just asserted, there is a First Amendment challenge that the schools are effectively prohibiting free practice of religion. I, as a private citizen can say that the bible is false. A government-run school system cannot.
The original "creation" that people believed in at the time was the literalist "6-day" one, not the "theistic evolution" one.
Even among those religious people who accepted theistic evolution once it began to be publically heard of, what made them accept it?
Evolution would have had to become established against the relgious establishment of the day.
Again, the question is, what made the scientists who proposed/accepted evolution at the time accept it?
Reynold:
Have you changed your mind. Have you decided that they were never creationists? That your original assertion to me was incorrect? The observations were consistent both with creationism and the then-new idea.
Right now, it looks like you are trying to tell me that scientists firmly believed in a six-day literal creation, saw nothing that contradicted that, yet still decided that it was wrong. It just doesn't fit.
I come from a different perspective. Anyone who so readily adopts an alternative was not convinced of the pre-existing claim. Creationism is consistent with all possible observations (i.e. it is an unfalsifiable pseudo-science.)
"Even among those religious people who accepted theistic evolution once it began to be publically heard of, what made them accept it?"
It was a plausible explanation of "how." Also, many laypeople were not given to question scientists. A consensus (as long as it didn't seem to contradict the church) was good enough for them. It is my observation that many people will readily agree with the claims of a perceived authority.
"Evolution would have had to become established against the relgious establishment of the day."
If that were true, it could not be established in groups that agreed with the religious establishment of the day.
Have you changed your mind. Have you decided that they were never creationists? That your original assertion to me was incorrect? The observations were consistent both with creationism and the then-new idea.
If that was truly the case, the "new idea", evolution, would never have been accepted.
Right now, it looks like you are trying to tell me that scientists firmly believed in a six-day literal creation, saw nothing that contradicted that,
Wrong. People came into new information. Read The Creationists by Ronald Numbers. Where did you get the impression that they saw nothing that contradicted that? That's when the fossil record and geological science started to shoot down creationism.
yet still decided that it was wrong. It just doesn't fit.
When something comes along that shoots down a current theory and explains the observable world better, than the new explanation is accepted.
I come from a different perspective. Anyone who so readily adopts an alternative was not convinced of the pre-existing claim.
Your perspective is skewed...you're confusing "bias" (not willing to believe an alternative explanation unless presented with enough evidence) with "having already made up their minds" (sticking to the same idea no matter what evidence comes along).
Creationism is consistent with all possible observations (i.e. it is an unfalsifiable pseudo-science.)
Creationism has been refuted. I'd refer you to Talk Origins.
"Evolution would have had to become established against the relgious establishment of the day."
If that were true, it could not be established in groups that agreed with the religious establishment of the day.
Not quite. It's just that enough people within some of those religious groups became convinced by the evidence. It's just that they were predisposed to not to want to believe it until the amount of evidence became too much. By then, the church had become "liberal" enough that they only had a strong bias against evolution, not the "refusing to believe no matter what" that they had centuries earlier.
Reynold:
You can refer me to anything you want. It changes nothing here. Creationism makes no testable claims (making it rather worthless as an explanation.)
"'Have you changed your mind. Have you decided that they were never creationists? That your original assertion to me was incorrect? The observations were consistent both with creationism and the then-new idea.'
"If that was truly the case, the 'new idea', evolution, would never have been accepted."
Not by anyone who was convinced of the old idea and saw the new idea as a contradiction. But this is why I conclude that the scientists were not convinced of creationism (neither would I be) and that the general public did not see a contradiction.
"Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?
"First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproven." [from TalkOrigins]
Strictly speaking, even that can't be disproven. If such a powerful being actually exists, he could manipulate the evidence. But perhaps you would like to find where the original accepters of evolution said something on the order of "creationism predicts we will find this and instead we find that." Good luck with that.
"Your perspective is skewed...you're confusing 'bias' (not willing to believe an alternative explanation unless presented with enough evidence) with 'having already made up their minds' (sticking to the same idea no matter what evidence comes along)."
Not at all. I said that there was no contrary evidence, creationism being an unfalsifiable pseudo-science. So, if they actually believed it, they would have no cause to stop. Now if they didn't actually believe it, they would have cause to look for a more satisfying explanation. And it appears that they did so.
"Where did you get the impression that they saw nothing that contradicted that?"
Because any possible observation could be reconciled with it. If there really are beings as powerful as described in the bible, they could manufacture fossils.
If they didn't actually believe creationism, then how did so many people for so many centuries believe it? How did they let the church get so much bully power over them in the first place if they "didn't really believe" in creationism in the first place?
What actual evidence do you have that they didn't actually believe in creationism in the first place?
Don't you realize that in science new theories have been developed and old ones discarded before? Are you going to say that "no one really believed" in the discarded ideas in the first place?
"If they didn't actually believe creationism, then how did so many people for so many centuries believe it?"
A complete non sequitur. Greek philosophers determined that the Earth was round and even measured it. Most people, for centuries, continued to believe that the world was flat. The beliefs of a small (comparatively) group of people need not bear any relation to beliefs generally held across the nation.
"How did they let the church get so much bully power over them in the first place if they 'didn't really believe' in creationism in the first place?"
That bully power comes from the fact that church and state have never been as separate as they should be. You may as well be asking how protesters let the army get so much bully power over them if they don't agree with the army.
"What actual evidence do you have that they didn't actually believe in creationism in the first place?"
Only the fact that creationism is inherently implausible and the eagerness to embrace an alternative. But I have told you this already. Creationism is so vague that no observation can disconfirm or contradict it.
"Don't you realize that in science new theories have been developed and old ones discarded before? Are you going to say that 'no one really believed' in the discarded ideas in the first place?"
Nice try. But generally a contradiction between the old idea and the evidence is identified first. The old idea is shown to be wrong before the new idea is proposed. But creationism is unfalsifiable. It never met the qualifications for a scientific theory. It cannot be shown wrong (no matter how ridiculous it is.) Furthermore, I do tend to agree with the claim that the people who demonstrated that an old idea was wrong hadn't actually believed in the old idea. Displaying the inconsistency can convince believers in an old idea that the idea is wrong. But they are unlikely to notice them unaided. They won't be looking for them.
"How did they let the church get so much bully power over them in the first place if they 'didn't really believe' in creationism in the first place?"
That bully power comes from the fact that church and state have never been as separate as they should be.
And how did that happen?
You may as well be asking how protesters let the army get so much bully power over them if they don't agree with the army.
Not with the army, but the gov't that gives the army it's orders. The politicians they elect are, generally at least giving lip service to the democratic prinicples that the protestors are arguing for.
With the church, they just took power by the people's belief in their superstition. Way back when, creationism was the accepted view of the earth, until the physical sciences came into their own.
"If they didn't actually believe creationism, then how did so many people for so many centuries believe it?"
A complete non sequitur. Greek philosophers determined that the Earth was round and even measured it. Most people, for centuries, continued to believe that the world was flat. The beliefs of a small (comparatively) group of people need not bear any relation to beliefs generally held across the nation.
There's also the matter of communication and the loss of knowledge over time. That, and showing the earth was round is relatively easy...only one good "proof" was needed. With evolution, one needed evidences from multiple fields before people began to accept it.
But creationism is unfalsifiable. It never met the qualifications for a scientific theory. It cannot be shown wrong (no matter how ridiculous it is.)
Actually, creationism is falsifiable; at least the literalist biblical creationism that's giving all the grief today in the Western world; all one needs is to show that the 1)age of the earth is far beyond what the bible says
2) show that the order of the appearance of animals and plants is different than what the bible says
3) show evidence that the global flood could not have happened
4) show that animals have changed over time instead of coming into existence in one fell swoop.
Before the physical sciences really got going, there wasn't much evidence to shoot all that down. Read Ronald Number's book The Creationists for more detail, or Arthur Strahler's Science and Earth History.
"one needs is to show that the 1)age of the earth is far beyond what the bible says"
The making of fake antiques is quite interesting. It's a matter of making something new look old.
"4) show that animals have changed over time instead of coming into existence in one fell swoop."
Animals can have changed after an initial creation, overlooking that there is no evidence for an initial creation.
"3) show evidence that the global flood could not have happened"
Again, if there is really some being that can manipulate the evidence...
"And how did that happen?"
Rulers liked the ability to claim divine decree for their power. (I am reminded of someone who often used to reply with "and how do you know that?")
"Not with the army, but the gov't that gives the army it's orders. The politicians they elect are, generally at least giving lip service to the democratic prinicples that the protestors are arguing for."
Given that they are protesting, they probably are not in agreement with the government either. But the power comes from an unmatched sheer brute force. I didn't claim that no one believed in creationism. But you are asking, in effect, how a thousand people with guns/swords can have bully power over 50 unarmed people. I think that's quite obvious.
I wasn't referring to antiques to make the earth seem older than it is, but rather the geological record, radiometric dating, etc.
I didn't claim that no one believed in creationism.True.
I'm just pointing out that creationism was the main belief back then, due to the lack of evidence to the contrary that they had at the time. Once the physical sciences got going, then it changed. As oranges said: "The first people to hear or and think of a form of evolution may have been creationists in that that was the prevailing thought at the time.
Once evidence pointed in the the direction of evolution, over time, it became the new consensus."
"I wasn't referring to antiques to make the earth seem older than it is, but rather the geological record, radiometric dating, etc."
No, but I'm talking about the same thing. The planet could, conceivably, have been made to look old.
"As oranges said: 'The first people to hear or and think of a form of evolution may have been creationists in that that was the prevailing thought at the time.'"
Except that it is human nature to attempt to reconcile new evidence with existing beliefs. Look for where the idea of evolution met with resistence and you will find who thought it challenged their existing beliefs.
What evidence do you have that people back then had "pre-existing" beliefs that went against creation? If there were any, they were by far in the minority.
How science works is when enough evidence comes along, people will change their minds, unless they've got some huge emotional (read. religious) reason not to.
Scientific theories get altered and overthrown all the time. Are you implying that for each overturned idea in science that no one really believed in that idea in the first place, so that's why it got overturned?
Einstienism and Newtonianism would have had to have pretty much the entire scientific community not actually believing in those theories then, since they've both been either overturned or modified.
Reynold:
Are you actually reading what I wrote?
"Furthermore, I do tend to agree with the claim that the people who demonstrated that an old idea was wrong hadn't actually believed in the old idea. Displaying the inconsistency can convince believers in an old idea that the idea is wrong. But they are unlikely to notice them unaided. They won't be looking for them."
I am saying that, generally, the people who notice on their own the problems with the old idea didn't actually believe it. They may not have believed it false either, but it wasn't shaping their thinking. If it shaped their thinking, they would be more likely to miss refuting evidence. But from there, they can draw attention to that evidence and convince those who did believe. You respond with "Are you implying that for each overturned idea in science that no one really believed in that idea in the first place...?" which is very much not what I said.
Ah, ok. Still, people can hold ideas that they believed and then, when given enough evidence, change their minds.
You seem to be implying that it's just those who were never fully convinced of the idea in the first place that would accept the new idea. That is true, but it's also true that even those who actually accepted the old idea may change their minds when presented with enough evidence of the new idea.
Post a Comment