scigirl

These recent debates with creationists, especially GeoTheo (or should I say, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001107" target="_blank">the poster formerly known as GeoTheo</a>), have made me think about this question:

Why do I think it's so important for people to accept evolution?

Of course as a scientist, I want people to accept it because I think it happened. And of course, I do believe that viewing humanity through the lens of evolution will help explain why we do things like fight wars and commit adultery.

Yet I think there is another reason, a much simpler one. I want people to accept evolution, because I want them to accept science.

I noticed over at the <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com" target="_blank">Baptist Board</a>, back when "froggie" was still allowed to voice her opinions, that many of the Baptists rejected scientific explanations for many things besides evolution. Many of the members thought that obesity, drug addiction, and even mental illness was the result of sin. This bothered me very much as a (future) medical professional, and I tried to no avail to convince them otherwise. I would link them to NIH studies where rats display similar symptoms of withdrawal from certain drugs. Or to studies that showed a certain genetic defect would cause a mouse to gain too much weight. No matter, they still thought that humans are addicted because they are sinners, and they aren't praying enough.

When a creationist rejects his/her religious explanation of the creation of humans in favor of the scientific one, a whole new door is opened up. Instead of obese humans being guilty of gluttony, perhaps they have a genetic disorder? Instead of people with drug addictions being shunned and locked away in jails, maybe now we can think about finding cures for addictive behaviors? And mental illness. . . instead of trying to cast out demons, let's try to understand why the brain, which is another organ just like a kidney, sometimes malfunctions and what can we do about it?

I wrote earlier in another thread that I don't necessarily worry what YEC scientists are doing, but rather what conclusions/studies are they not accepting? The fact that they believe humans are a special creation, different from all animals, could be profoundly affecting their worldview in ways we haven't even considered.

Just my random thoughts for today,

scigirl

Bubba

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you scigirl for driving home that point about obesity. Through study of evolution I have given up creationism per se and become a thesitic evolutionist. I have two friends from church, both of whom struggle with Obesity even though they eat very carefully. It makes a huge difference to me personally (since accepting evolution) to see obesity as a design flaw due to natural selection and common decent than a curse sent by God.

One of the people (Karen) is my son's sunday school teacher. She is a devout creationist. I really wish that I could find some way of telling her that it is not her fault but it is due to her genetic makeup. Ditto for my friend Don. But I see both of them in turmoil because they wonder what they have done "wrong" to be given bodies that don't metabolize food properly.


Bubba <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

ksagnostic

ITA.

When I was preparing for my comprehensive oral and written examinations, and national board examination, I was in a study group, and among the activities we did was to answer old questions. One of our questions dealt with a since discredited method for working with people with developmental disabilities and/or cerebral palsy. One of the participants went into a rant about how it was based on the work of John Hughings Jackson and "other nonsense". I replied that while some of what Jackson did was gruesome, it was generally considered more pioneering than nonsense (sidenote, each of us in the study group took areas of study to develop a comps notebook, and mine was neurology). Her reply? "Well, you might believe that evolutionary nonsense, but I don't." I was stunned. I also found her response disturbing because in the end she didn't evaluate the method on its merits or lack of them, she rejected it because she found its basis ideologically offensive. As I said, this method of intervention was discredited, but it was discredited because the results did not support its efficacy, and it was a time consuming approach that cut down on opportunities to use other, evidentially better supported interventions. But that had nothing to do with why she rejected it. She rejected it because it was linked, distantly at that, to an individual who used an evolutionary framework to describe his work. Which makes me wonder what her basis would be for evaluating other intervention methods which are also based on work that was done with an evolutionary framework in mind, but are actually currently in use, and have been shown to be effective.

I always think of this woman when I see something from Phillip Johnson. In the end, his problem seems to be less with evolution than with the approach of methodological naturalism, which means ultimately he has a problem with all natural science. Well, I for one wouldn't want a doctor who isn't a methodological naturalist, at least professionally.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Albion

I think the whole approach of "we don't have to worry about man-made theories, we have all the answers" and the willingness to accept anything spoken by an authority figure as long as the ideology is congenial is really dangerous. I really don't like they way that so many people consider critical thinking to be some sort of dangerous perversion. Sheep can be herded by anybody who knows how to push the relevant buttons (wherever buttons are to be found on sheep, of course).

Late_Cretaceous

Scigirl said "The fact that they believe humans are a special creation, different from all animals, could be profoundly affecting their worldview in ways we haven't even considered."

This is EXACTLY what disturbs me most about fundamentalis christianity. This whole idea that we are somehow elevated above all nature, that the world is here at our disposal to use and abuse with no regard for the future. Running out of resources? Well either God will provide, or the world will be destroyed anyhow - so it does not matter. That whole subdue and have dominion over the earth bit is pure insanity. We must recognize that we are a part of the biosphere and that we depend upon it. I have often heard fundies expousing, what I regard as wonton destruction of our environment. However, when I have taken them to task in these discussion boards they always reply with something along the lines of "oh no, we beleive in protecting god's creation" - total bullshit.

DireStraits

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you scigirl for driving home that point about obesity.

DS: I could not agree more. Down these narrow streets a man must walk.

Through study of evolution I have given up creationism per se and become a thesitic evolutionist.

DS: I took a different route to squeeze out of the closet as a stout man. I had the courage to face those who ridiculed me. The called me "Gutbucket", "Wobblebottom" and other derogatory terms. Know I know that I am "stout".

I have two friends from church, both of whom struggle with Obesity even though they eat very carefully.

DS: I also have a friend who thinks he may be stout. Is there any advice you can give to me, er, I mean him?

It makes a huge difference

DS: Yes, I think everything about Stoutism eventually becomes huge. A typical example of stoutisim is signs in elevators saying "Maximum load eight persons."


to me personally (since accepting evolution) to see obesity as a design flaw due to natural selection and common decent than a curse sent by God.

DS: True. Has nothing at all to do with gluttony, supersizing, cheap food and lack of exercise.

Aldehyde

It seems as though they think anything bad is due to sins or whatever. If that is the case, I can see why that bothered you because if they are hardcore believers than they will probably not seek medical attension but to rather endure through the whatever condition they have - probably worsening the condistion.

scigirl

Thanks y'all.

Yeah exactly. And Aldehyde, even if they did seek medical help, they still felt in "their hearts" that it was due to sin, or lack of prayer.

So not only were they biologically sick, they were "mentally sick" too with guilt (or worse, made someone else feel guilty).

Oh and many Christian church's stance on homosexuality (which I find downright repulsive and anti-human rights) fits right in here too.

scigirl

Caverdude

You know, I really believe in what our Constitution stands for in regards to Freedom of Religion (or from religion). Generally, I don't care if a person wants to believe in Creationism or whatever. For me, the problems started when they (the Creationists) started force feeding their views on me. And worse, they are constantly attempting to worm their way into schools and textbooks. This is where I get angry and this is when I go to war.
It is not so much that they choose to take Genesis literally, but to "prove" their ideas, they use various forms of propaganda to trash the sciences (ALL of them, from geology to astronomy). This is very damaging not only to the scientific community but to our children's education. Most school boards are now too afraid to even touch the subject of evolution. The result? My kids will lack a proper foundation on basic science that touches on old earth theories and evolutionary theory. I think is the responsibity of all rationalists to become politically active to keep the wall separating church and state and to keep our schools free of religious dogma.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Caverdude ]</p>

braces_for_impact

For me the problem is willfull ignorance. Time and again reason is thrown out the window in favor of religious or superstious dogma. It's a matter of honesty and intellectual responsibility. Instead of analyzing social problems, looking into the past to see what works and what doesn't, and making valid projections about future events, we hold to outdated ideals supposedly handed down from god. Instead of researching evolution to see if it's a valid theory, people simply decide, based on personal tastes whether it's rational. Instead of distributing condoms to aids-epidemic third world countries, people are told it's against god's will to use a condom. Time and again history has shown that belief without evidence can lead to problems, both on a personal level and to the world at large. To not use valid reasoning and critical thinking is to do a diservice to humanity as a whole.