May 14 2010
Logic and Creationism
I spent my allotted blogging time this morning debating over e-mail with a creationist who professes to be interested in logic. So, for your edification, here is the latest exchange in a point-counter point style.
Consensus
Me: It is not just my opinion – it is the opinion of the vast majority of the scientific community. The inescapable conclusion is that you are smarter or better informed than 99% of working scientists – it doesn’t mean you are wrong, but that should give you pause.
Duane: You’re correct in the fact that the majority of the scientific community accepts what you believe as well. But there are explanations for that phenomenon. Besides, I have lived too long and know too much for that to give me pause. We have enough examples in old and new history of the majority being WRONG. I can’t just blindly accept something just because the majority believes it. Galileo comes to mind; how about climate change. We could go back to a whole host of scientific pronouncements about food and health and see it has changed from one side of the spectrum to the other over the years.
Me: There is no example of the scientific community in modern times being completely wrong about a 150 year consensus such as evolution. That would be completely unprecedented. Galileo is not a good analogy – he was not bucking a scientific consensus but religious dogma. Climate change is not a good analogy – the consensus is far more recent, not nearly as solid as evolution, and you cannot assume that it has been rejected or disproved – at the very least this is still controversial. Similar with food and health – I am a physician and very familiar this history and evidence. There is nothing here even remotely similar to evolution.
Authority
Duane: By the way, you may have caught yourself before committing the “Majority Rules” or “Might makes right” fallacy, but you are darn close to appealing to the “Ad hominem” argument by denigrating my intelligence. For someone who has dedicated an entire web page to logic you sure like to mingle your arguments with touches of logical fallacies throughout. Insulting me is not helping your argument.
Me: I did not “catch” myself – this is part of the nuance of this logical fallacy. Read my full article on it: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=499 And another article just on the difference between authority and consensus: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1657
Further – saying that you are probably not smarter and better informed than 99% of working scientists is no where near an ad hominem.
Secondary Hostile Sources
Me: You are proceeding from false premises because you are grossly misinformed. I don’t know with whom you are talking, but you are either not hearing them correctly or they do not understand or know how to explain the evidence for evolution. I suggest you read a pro-evolution text (rather than just secondary hostile sources) to see what the science really is.
Duane: I have had no choice but to hear, see and read pro-evolution text and so forth…it’s everywhere. It’s taught in our public schools, colleges, and universities. It’s on every TV program that ever talks about nature. There’s a gazillion books on the subject. Come on dude, I don’t live under a rock. Perhaps your right, the people I have spoken to, and there have been many, weren’t very good at explaining macro evolution, but I have been asking for evidence from someone, anyone, who can give an intelligent argument without arguing from logical fallacies for twenty-one years. I am opened minded (not so opened mined that my brains will fall out) so perhaps you’re the one guy who can pull it off.
I have heard a tremendous amount from evolutionists. Maybe you need to be more fair minded and unbiased and listen to some of the more intelligent creationists who happen to be scientists. Not that one has to be a scientist to know truth from error on the subject. I can recommend some reading if you like.
By the way, “…to see what the science really is.” Wow this is a really presumptuous statement from you. All due respect, I think it would behoove you to go back to the basics of science and understand what the SCOPE of science is. PROVING our origins is beyond the scope of science. We weren’t there to witness it and we cannot duplicate it. Science works on observation and repeatability. The best that science can do on the subject of origins is to give a reasonable scientific theory, not a pronouncement of scientific fact. Another thing that people never acknowledge is how often bias is introduced into the information gathering and conclusions drawn by certain data. Again you can look at many cases of that over the years. In other words scientists are human and can make mistakes or even try to fudge the data to fit their presuppositions. You shouldn’t put any group of human beings on too large of a pedestal.
Me: There was nothing presumptuous in my statement at all. You stated bold misrepresentations of the science, which are in line with creationist talking points. I did not have to presume anything – it is obvious you do not have an adequate understanding of the evidence for evolution, or the nature of science.
For example, you repeat the creationist canard that a scientific theory cannot also be an established scientific fact. This is not about metaphysical “proof” – scientists are very clear about that. There is no absolute proof in science. The fact that no one was there to witness evolution happen is another canard – science is not dependent upon direct observation of events – to think that is to dismiss all historical sciences. Science can use logical inference and test hypotheses about what happened in the past. Evolution makes many specific and testable predictions – and so far all of those predictions have been validated. Evolution has been confirmed to such a high degree that we can now take it as a solid premise – an established fact.
Regarding bias, of course it is rampant in any human endeavor. But science is also self-corrective, and bias is systematically worked out. Also, the point of consensus is that individual biases are averaged out over many people – that is precisely why a consensus of many is more compelling than the quirky beliefs of an individual. I don’t put scientists on pedestals – I trust in the process of science because it works.
Microevolution
Me: Right off the bat – “There is no evidence what so ever for macro evolution.”
This is demonstrably patently false. You have not been looking or listening. Evolution is not based solely on evidence for “microevolution” (whatever that means) – observed small changes is just one line of evidence, and probably the weakest.
Duane: The burden of proof is on the affirmative. Ex. “Macro evolution is true” not the negative “There is no evidence what so ever for macro evolution”. You are aware of this principle right? It’s the whole reason why in a court of law the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the defendant. It’s easier to prove the existence of something than the non-existence of something (The latter would require infinite knowledge). Prove it! I’m listening!
Let me define some terms here just so we are on the same page in our understanding. Between the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution the difference is huge. Micro-evolution is another term for adaptations (As you said above…observed small changes) but the species is still the same species it doesn’t change into a completely different creature. Macro-evolution is the term used to describe a complete change of one species or animal into a completely different species. Of which, as I stated before there is no evidence for what so ever.
Me: I am not asking you to prove that evolution did not happen. But you are making a negative statement – there is no evidence. Those types of statements can be falsified by one counter example. I have, below, presented to you a great deal of evidence for macro evolution, which falsifies your claim.
Regarding “macroevolution” – the reason this is a problematic concept is because the notion of “species” is very fuzzy. You say “completely different species” as if that means something scientifically or quantitatively. In reality species blur into each other with very fuzzy borders. There is no distinction that you can make between evolutionary changes within a species and changing from one species to another. It’s a continuum.
Fossil Evidence
Me: The major lines of evidence for what you call macroevolution, and what scientists call common descent, include the fossil evidence, the nestled hierarchies of gross anatomy, which also fit a temporal and geographic pattern, developmental biology, and (the biggest evidence) the molecular genetic evidence.
Duane: There is no fossil evidence for macro-evolution. Show me and don’t point to adaptive changes in the fossil record and assume, illogically, that because that happened macro-evolution had to have happened. You can explain the middle two theories if you like. I’m interested. As for your so called “biggest evidence” molecular genetics, the opposite is true. Once again there is no evidence for it but evidence that contradicts the macro-evolutionary theory. In fact in this area of science you will see more derision between scientists than in most other disciplines of science because of the evidence against it.
Me: Wow – this one always gets me. There is overwhelming fossil evidence for evolution, specifically common descent. You must have at least some familiarity with the many transitional fossils we have discovered, so by what twist of logic are they not evidence for common descent. Evolutionary theory predicts that we will find fossil evidence of species that lie somewhere morphologically between extant groups – they must be connected in the past if all life descended from a common ancestor. That is a falsifiable prediction made by evolution. And in the past 150 years we have discovered (just to give some recent examples):
Archaeopteryx: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1056
Transitional turtles: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=431
fish to tetrapods: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=49
half whales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
transitions from reptile to mammal: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
transitional pinnipeds: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=524
Many primates: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1120
This is just off the top of my head. None of these species had to exist if creation were true. Evolution requires that something like them did exist. The fact is, over the last 150 years we have been steadily filling in the tree of life, as predicted by common descent. This has been a stunning scientific confirmation.
Genetic Evidence
Me: The genetic evidence alone leaves no room for doubt that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor.
Duane: I already answered this to some degree in the previous paragraph. But once again the burden of proof is on you. Show me. If you are referring to common features or substances within all of nature…It’s yet another example of a leap of logic to say just because you see common design features or substances doesn’t mean they had to be descended from that species or we all had a common ancestor. These are illegitimate inferences.
Me: Here is a good summary of the evidence for macroevolution – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Please read Part 4 at least on the molecular evidence. It is a slam dunk for common descent.
Now your 20 year wait is over. I will be happy to discuss this evidence with you afterward.
Scientific “Law”
Duane: I’ll read it and get back to you. Thanks for the info. By the way, if it is a slam dunk then why is macro-evolution still a theory and not a scientific law? I never did get it when evolutionists make similar claims.
Me: You have not made an argument – you simply made a false assertion. I have provided you with a summary of the evidence – the pattern of proteins, genes, viral inclusions all point to common descent with a statistical power that is staggering. You are simply parroting hostile sources which lie about the evidence.
You also misunderstand what is meant by a “law” in science. A “law” is a fundamental property of the universe. Evolution is historical – it is about what happened in the past. It will never be a law. You also misunderstand what scientists mean by “theory” – a theory is an explanatory system that brings together many observations and makes predictions. It is not a statement about certainty. A theory can also be a fact (like gravity) if it has been sufficiently supported by evidence that we can take it as a premise.
Straw man
Me: Regarding your other point about straw man arguments – this is just not valid. If I say it is a common creationist argument to X – that does not imply that all creationists make that argument, and since not all creationists do it is a straw man. You are really stretching there. I am just giving examples of arguments that represent each fallacy, not fully describing the range of creationist beliefs and arguments.
Duane: You seem to have a double standard. You accused me of the straw man tactic when I used the word “scientists”. You used the word “creationists”. I like you didn’t say ALL scientists but yet you accused me of straw man. I acknowledged out of fairness that it would be construed as such so I clarified myself. I’m merely doing the same as you and giving examples. If I’m stretching you’re stretching as well.
Me: You miss the point. Your argument was a straw man because no scientist makes the argument you stated. There is a difference between “no scientists” and “not every creationist.” Some creationists make the argument I was using as an example, therefore it is not a straw man.
The Challenge
Me: You seem like a smart guy who is truly interested in logic. I do not think you or all creationists are idiots. I think you are just misinformed, by a very deliberate, sophisticated, and well funded campaign of misinformation that has lasted for several generations. What I am asking you to do is just consider the possibility that you don’t have all the information. Perhaps 99% of scientists agree that evolution is an established fact because they have more or better information than you. Ask yourself how much you have relied upon secondary hostile sources for your information, or if the evolutionists you have spoken with were really in a position to properly represent the evidence.
Duane: “very deliberate, sophisticated, and well funded campaign of misinformation that has lasted for several generations.” You sound like someone paranoid and into conspiracies. That is absolutely a ridiculous and an unfounded falsehood. “What I am asking you to do is just consider the possibility that you don’t have all the information.” I can do that and have many times when someone has tried to prove the evolutionary point only to be still left with no evidence. I’m fair…I’ll give you a shot. If you want me to consider I may not have all the facts then you need to consider you may be wrong and also don’t have all the facts. After all it’s beyond the scope of science to prove our origins and you and I nor anyone for that matter has infinite knowledge.
Me: It is not an unfounded falsehood (you know, you just can’t make stuff up whenever you want just to make a point). What do you think the Discovery Institute is – a well funded organization with a specific goal of spreading scientific misinformation to oppose evolution and “materialist” science and promote an ideology of supernaturalism. There was “creation science” before them, and laws to oppose evolution and promote creationism before that. There has been an actual anti-evolution movement in this country for over 100 years. This is history, not paranoia.
Theory
Me: Take a look at the molecular evidence with an open mind. If you can think of a viable scientific explanation for that evidence other than common descent I will be very happy to hear it and discuss it with you.
Duane: You need to understand something, I don’t have a problem if someone wants to claim and teach that macro-evolution is a very reasonable theory and explanation of our origins. What I have a problem with is when the majority claims and teaches a scientific THEORY as scientific fact. That’s not what science is about.
Me: I think you misunderstand what we mean by “scientific fact.” That means it is the best theory we have and it is supported by so much evidence that it would be obscene not to give it provisional assent – which is the best science will do. We can proceed as if gravity is real, as if protons and electrons exist, as if DNA is the molecule that carries inherited information. These are all theories – and facts. They are open to fine tuning and modification – but the probability that we will discover that DNA has nothing to do with inheritance is so small we can ignore it. That is what it means to be a scientific fact.
The same is true of evolution, you just don’t know it.
Let us focus on the molecular evidence, otherwise such conversations expand beyond control. I am giving you what I think is the best evidence – I accept the burden of proof. I think it has been met, without question.
The way to approach this evidence is this – nothing metaphysically “proves” evolution – that’s not how science works. But you have to ask yourself – what predictions does evolution make about what we would expect to find when we analyze the DNA of various species. What predictions would creationism make? Are there any other options, and what predictions would they make?
I look forward to your response.
Steve
102 Responses to “Logic and Creationism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well done, Steve. And v polite.
However, politeness does not sit well with me. Duane is an idiot and will most likely die one. Our energy needs to be placed on building that constitutional wall against theocracy, not reasoning with brain-dead, pathologically inflicted with the Dunning-Kruger effect, emotionally crippled and mentally stunted individuals. There are others who are sitting on the fence, Duane is not one of them. He is an obnoxious, pathetic, throwback to dogmatic idiocy.
You have an admirable amount of patience.
Your fortitude and patience astound me.
me: the sky is blue.
Duane: No its not!
me: but it is, the sky is blue.
Duane: No its really not!
me: but I’m looking at it and its clearly blue.
Duane: Dude, no its not!
Good try Steve but I think Duane is comfortable on his perch and doesn’t want to move off it no matter what you say.
I enjoyed this post very much. Please consider using this type of format for future blog entries whether it’s about Evolution/Creationism or any other skeptical/science issues.
I remember when the concept of DNA with its twisted spiral ladder first was introduced. It was exciting to learn the specifics in high school biology class. So much would happen after the discovery. I would frequently provide pro bono services at the local courthouse and clients would bring in DNA information from an Ohio lab with respect to paternity issues. I’m still wowed by the evidence!
The primary reason that scientists and rationalists become disheartened and eventually angry with Creationists is because the Creationists will bring us to our limits of patience no matter what. They will never, ever accept evolution: they will ignore the evidence as they have done in the past, despite its absolutely overwhelming existence, and continue to stand up for their believe no matter how many times reality slaps them to the ground. They put their fingers in their ears and go “na na na!” when the evidence presents itself, and continue to affirm their own belief in their two-thousand-year-old book.
Duane is a perfectly typical example. He claims to have a respect for logic, but this is actually simply to get your attention so that he can spout his gibberish at you. Every one of his arguments was totally classic, cookie-cutter Creationist argument and incredibly easy for anyone remotely familiar with the typical Creationist arguments to slap down. If he had done ANY reading on the evolution “debate,” for example, he would have come across the scientific theory vs. fact enough times to know not to bother bringing it up. Ditto with macro evolution, science’s historical application, etc.
I really don’t know how to deal with people. You cannot point out all of their logical flaws, hand them a book full of evidence, and be calm with them. It simply does not work. The only way this will work is by teaching young children to think rationally, to teach them not to simply accept everything they are taught by their elders, and make them aware that religions exist that warp the mind into believing twisted logic and reason. It will take a very long time, but I do not believe that the majority of evolution-deniers will ever accept evolution, no matter what the evidence.
Duane says: “I have been asking for evidence from someone, anyone, who can give an intelligent argument without arguing from logical fallacies for twenty-one years.”
Somehow I doubt if he has ever read a book like Donald R Prothero’s Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters from cover to cover. I read it about a year ago and it is a fascinating read with lots of very recent examples I hadn’t heard of. It does take some endurance, though.
It would be interesting to see what Duane’s comments would be after reading it, but I doubt if we will be so lucky.
There are plenty of places to purchase the book but you can learn more about it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=pd_sim_b_5
Duane also refers to “some of the more intelligent creationists who happen to be scientists”. Did he ever name them or cite their published research that supports his arguments?
On the logic end, I noticed a couple of times in his quoted remarks where it seemed that the way he phrased a question or proposed argument was setting himself up with a pre-established excuse to dismiss your response. Is this a type of logical fallacy and is there a name for it?
I certainly don’t think we should spend our time trying to change the minds of dedicated creationists one-by-one. That is not what this entry is about. I intend it as a general resource – yes, there are no new arguments here. But we do have to repeat them from time to time to keep them high on Google searches, etc. Perhaps someone who is on the fence, or open to reason but just misinformed will read it. Perhaps it will be useful to a skeptic who needs to deal with creationist family members, co-workers, etc.
It is also useful as a “name that logical fallacy” exercise.
And finally, Duane did set himself up as at least valuing logic and evidence (not everyone does), and so that will enable me to push his back to the wall. We’ll see what he does then.
He is a typical believer who relies on his faith to answer his questions. Evidence doesn’t convince him as he will only seek evidence that confirms his belief and ignore it if it doesn’t, as we all will. A creationist that is also a scientist is an oxymoron, unless they are in a totally unrelated field. Creationists believe things and only see confirmation. Scientists make certain assumptions about the world and then test them. Someone who believes that toast always lands on the buttered side down, when faced with it landing buttered side up, will think that he buttered the wrong side.
Wow, I also have to congratulate Dr. Novella on his patience. Steve, you must be one hell of a father!
My guess is that Duane’s objections boil down to the argument from personal incredulity and the rest is all window dressing.
In my profession I must interact with a number of prison inmates and it always amazes me how their circular logic, non-sequiturs, and downright fabrications resemble the argumentative style of the religious right. No explanation or reasoning can appeal to either mindset. The frustration I feel in dealing with either demographic is exactly the same.
I’ve tried very hard to give up debating Creationists. I find it entirely too frustrating, and I imagine they feel as open to it as I feel when the Jehovies show up at my door. All of the Creationists I’ve ever dealt with had closed their minds ages ago, and claimed that I was the closed minded one. This supposition always makes me giggle, as I was raised a devout Christian and had to be open-minded to the world around me to move past my faith and embrace truth.
This conversation reminded me of the crappiest party in history. Two friends of mine at this party got into an argument about the ten dimensions. The guy who took the scientific side of the argument didn’t really understand the topic as well as he should have to be debating it (NOT saying that’s the case here, clearly you know your stuff) and the other guy did the traditional Creationist slip ‘n slide, adapting his comments whether he understood or not. In the end, the Creationist was saying that he believed that the tenth dimension was where God lived, as if that either made sense or in any way was an arguable decision. I honestly thought they were going to fight, which would have been hilarious. Combining the two wouldn’t get you close to 300 pounds, and it would have been a furious ten second slap fight.
In retrospect, that might have made for the best party in history, if only they’d gone that one step further.
Look no farther than the paid google ads on this page. I 100% agree with posting “discussions” like the one above on blogs and whatnot. It helps stem the tide so to speak.
For those who think that discussions of this kind can’t bear fruit, let me serve as an example of their effect.
I am still a theist – I’d call myself a Christian, but the majority of the people I attend church with would likely disagree – who has been persuaded by evidence given by scientists and researchers like Steve Novella that there is no alternative other than that more complex forms of life evolved from simpler forms of life, in a progression that was not guided by a designer except possibly at the point of abiogenesis.
If I’m being honest, I never really believed anything differently, I just chose to believe the opposite at the same time and eventually cognitive dissonance became too much.
You can change hearts and minds. I’ll be honest, not a single one of the evolutionists who were vital in persuading me were anything but unfailingly polite and I was held up and hampered by those who were rude and dismissive. It’s anecdotal, but there you are.
How fortunate we are to live in an era brimming with Galileos. I can’t throw a rock without hitting one.
I think commenter- Marshall- summed it up best, Duane claimed to be ‘opened-minded’ and has been looking into this for 20 years yet he has never heard the fact that the word theory is used differently in science than everyday usage? Really? To me this is a huge red flag that he is not changing his mind no matter what evidence you show him.
Steven Novella…a conspiracy theorist? That’s rich.
For us to be Galileos, the good Christians would have to start another Inquisition to put us on trial and threaten us with torture. Hate to tell you this, but the earth does orbit the sun and there is nothing you can do about it.
It amazing how he can stand next to a mountain of evidence for evolution and insist there is no evidence, and the burden of proof is on evolutionists, and the same time he has no credible evidence to support the claims of creationism.
I really dislike the terms micro and macro-evolution. Does anyone really talk about micro and macro-time passage? I see the second hand moving on the clock, so I believe in seconds, but I can’t see the hour hand move, so there are no such things as hours. Micro-time vs macro-time.
You don’t have to spend too much time studying the concept of what a species is to understand that it’s a bit of a fuzzy concept. Try looking up ring species if you’re so sure that there is always a clear distinction of what constitutes a distinct species.
Steve,
Nice work – kudos for your patience. Considering how much you do, Duane has no idea how precious is the time you’ve given him.
By the way, I like the Endogenous Retrovirus markers as proof of common descent (and therefore “macro” evolution). This website provides a nice, methodical, image-rich treatment of the ERV evidence:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
It can be useful in the “nobody has ever proved macro evolution” debates.
I won’t ask specifically if this is the Duane that I suspect it is, but I will say that I thought I sensed a gallop or two in there…
Please keep us updated! I used to debate creationists online all the time but I had to stop because it seemed like it was bad for my health (I’m not sure I’ve ever been more furious…).
I’d love to know how he responds to the info you gave him. Please, let me continue to debate vicariously through you!
I like the written debate format, because it is easier to analyze each side,and follow references.Also, it is harder for someone to claim “I never said or claimed ‘X’ “,when you can clearly see that they did. Although informal, live debates are interesting to watch,because they can reveal much about the participants through how they handle themselves, I find them frustrating because opponents can talk (shout?) over one another,and points and counterpoints get lost in the ‘fog of war’.
For the people reading a debate,it doesn’t really matter whether one side changes the other’s mind. The arguments should stand on their own logic and evidence,and let the readers see who makes the best case.
The term macro-evolution doesn’t sit well with me either. Micro-evolution seems like a viable term in that, at least at my current level of understanding, it’s just a fancy word for adaptation. But macro-evolution? Whenever I hear this, I cringe.
The crockaduck is an example of macro-evolution, or at least what they’re looking for, that process wherin two cats have a dog-baby. You don’t have sudden and species-changing evolution happening. When we refer to macro-evolution, what we really mean is (if I understand correctly) the sum total of a whole pile of adaptations that have succeeded and eventually presented us with a brand new species. Obviously, the line in the sand there is extremely hard to fix, but from a macro distance we can see where these things have happened. But when they use the term, they mean crockaduck. And the fact that we don’t have a crockaduck and that a crockaduck would immediately fly in the face of what we know about evolution doesn’t dissuade them.
I do get into conversations about evolution, but only with people who I consider open to discussion. Creationists are not in my experience open to the discussion, so it’s a waste of breath. They use no end of logical fallacy and ignorance to dismiss anything you say, and in the end all they accomplish is blood boiling in my veins at having someone so rudely ignore what I was saying. I hate that. So I don’t bother.
Simple dishonesty or just not listening to what Steve was saying, or both:
Steve: “What I am asking you to do is just consider the possibility that you don’t have all the information.”
Duane: “I can do that and have many times when someone has tried to prove the evolutionary point only to be still left with no evidence.”
……………………………………………..
He doesn’t even concider the posibility and don’t want to search himself. He wants OTHERS to prove. That’s a big problem with this type of creotards. They are not curious, they won’t read a book or take a lesson. They are simply true believers.
Logic and Creationism continued…
I look forward to your response.
Steve
(Steve looks at clock…)
Steve: Holy crap, it’s four o’clock…,(looks out front window…)
Hey, Where the hell’s my car!?
Duane’s accomplice: Mwah Hah!! Sucker!
A good overall reply but as someone who’s read up a fair bit on the Galileo affair I have to take issue with your statement that “he was not bucking a scientific consensus but religious dogma”.
. Galileo certainly went against the theology of the day but he also went against scientific consensus as well. Most astronomers (/astrologers, the 2 professions weren’t that distinct) of the day still accepted the Ptolemaic system, Aristotelian physics etc.
Galileo’s conflict with the Aristotelian scientists (who he thought were stodgy and prone to taking Aristotle’s arguments about physics on authority alone) was just as pronounced as his theological conflict with Pope Urban, Cardinal Bellarmine etc.
Of course it’s still a bad analogy to draw since unlike most people going against the scientific consensus, Galileo had some great arguments to back up his theory — but there is a difference.
You know, when I think back to my own rejection of religion and (later) certain ideological political beliefs, I don’t think there was ever a moment that I had some epiphany. Every time I argued with other people, I’d dig my heels in deeper during the argument–but if they had really good points, they would needle me mentally. As in, I might “win” the argument, but I might feel a bit of cognitive dissonance afterward. That stuff *slowly* brings down, brick by brick, the mental wall you erect to protect your lovely, cherished beliefs. The wall never comes crashing down, but eventually it’s just not there anymore. Repeated confrontation with the absurdity of your beliefs makes it painful to retain them.
Echo chambers have the opposite effect; it hardens and strengthens the wall (excuse the extended metaphor). I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the utility of debating people patiently, like Steve did above. If that guy actually reads the talk origins page, he’s not going to have some huge epiphany, but, hey, maybe one brick fewer in the wall?
Clarification on my previous post: I’m not equating accepting the evidence for evolution with rejecting religion. I grew up in Louisiana, but was not aware of creationism until I was in my late teens (I guess I was sheltered that way). I’m just saying the process that led to my rejection of certain ideologies could lead other people to reject their own (eg, creationism).
It’s kind of sad. Duane does seem like he values rational thought and logic. There doesn’t seem to be any explicit dogmatism or blatant arguments from authority (i.e. there is no “the Bible says so so it must be true”) and while it’s clear he gets frustrated from time to time he continues to try to respond as rationally as he can (instead of descending to personal attacks like some of the “anti-vaccination” crowd). Duane’s arguments remind me of some people I knew growing up in Oklahoma and Texas; intelligent people who try to live well.
—————————-
I wonder how many anti-evolutionists started out believing evolution when they were young. They believed it not because they had good reason to but because they learned it in school and most of what you learn in school was true, right? And besides, let’s be honest, a four _billion_ year old earth with hundreds of millions of years of dinosaurs in its past … how cool is that?
At some point along the way (it happens to most of us if not all of us), perhaps soon after they graduate high school, they start to realize that much of what gets taught in public high schools (especially in smaller towns) is not as true as they thought. Newton really didn’t discover gravity because an apple fell on his head. Galileo probably didn’t drop bowling balls from the tower of Pisa. Turns out there _is_ water on the moon, etc. Sometimes the high schools are teaching the best they can but with books that are ten years old and not exactly cutting edge when they were published. Sometimes a town (or even a state) can bias an approved history text in such a way that while it might not actually state falsehoods it gives an impression completely at odds with the consensus of historical research. (I did mention Texas already, right?)
——————————————–
These people I mentioned, my friends from way back, they weren’t as educationally fortunate as (I suspect) most folks that follow science blogs. A couple didn’t have the chance to go to college at all. Those that did were often keen to get through their four years with as little math and science as they could. It wasn’t that they didn’t like science or math but they weren’t going to risk compromising their grades taking difficult classes in subjects that had no real bearing on their expected career path. (In my day it was truly amazing how little math and science one could get away with if one was majoring in “political science”, “business” or “fine arts”.)
And at no point, not in high school or in college, were they really exposed to the value of critical thinking. Maybe some elective course spent three lectures on the subject and they memorized a list of responses so that they could check the correct oval on the mid-term’s multiple choice test. But they never really understood what critical thinking was, how to use it in their own lives, how humans had developed it over millennia and why it was important.
These old friends of mine, they all wanted to better themselves. They wanted to be educated. They really wanted to know more about physics, genetics and the biological sciences and not just throw out impressively erudite sound bites at local social gatherings. So they started trying to educate themselves. Being on a budget they tried to spend wisely. After all, knowing more science wasn’t necessary for them to succeed in their careers as a call service manager or a sales representative or any of a multitude of other professions. Learning science was not perceived as an investment but as a hobby. Soon it became obvious that college text books and most scholarly tomes were priced beyond reach. They tried to find some magazines on their subjects of interest but these were either hard to find, impossible to understand or both. They must have felt fortunate when they find the “Science” section in their local “Barnes and Noble” or “Borders” or any of the other book store chains across the country.
It’s this moment in their stories that makes me want to weep.
They find an inexpensive soft cover book with attractive cover art. It’s written relatively recently, the summary is easy to understand. The description of the author on the back of the book sounds very impressive. The book promised to discuss all the “latest controversial” issues about the theory of evolution. The prose inside seemed thoughtful but accommodating of someone with little formal education. “Yes, this looks like a much better purchase than that plain soft cover copy of ‘The Selfish Gene’,” they must have thought. “Who is ‘Richard Dawkins’ anyway and why is he only interested in ‘selfish’ genes?”
—————————————–
That attractive soft cover book was like intellectual heroine. My friends would read through it eagerly. It told them that what they learned about evolution in school was wrong – well no surprise there, they’d discovered problems with the school education before. And it explained all the latest evidence and the work done by the author’s institute showing a multitude of flaws in existing evolutionary theory. The book was surprisingly nondenominational and simply posited an “intelligent designer”, not a deity. “Like an advanced alien race could have designed all the life on the planet. Sounds like a cool sci-fi novel,” more than one of them must have thought.
Though lacking real critical reasoning tools, life tends to remove some measure of our credulity from us over time. Many of my old friends were not completely convinced upon reading just one book. They wanted to learn more. They found other books in the local bookstore’s “Science” section very similar to the first. There were many inexpensive books on various branches of science describing the “most recent controversial evidence” or “new understandings of the fundamental laws of the universe and mind”. All were written by authors with impressive sounding credentials. Most were easy to read and plainly worded. Of course, there was one important flaw in all of these books; unfortunately my friends weren’t aware of it.
None of these books were about science.
—————————————
Time passed. My old friends read, if not voraciously, then at least more than their immediate peer group. Among their neighbors, friends and coworkers they begin to get a reputation as being a “knowledgeable guy” and “a thinker”. (This may seem hard to believe, but there are *large* demographics who don’t want to learn about science. They’d just as soon glean what little science they need from their friends and neighbors and spend their time floating in their above-ground pool with a six-pack and a baseball game on the radio.) Several of my old friends could have spontaneously debated evolution with electrical engineers, medical doctors, civil engineers, literary professors, etc. and held their own very well. (Of course my friends’ facts were wrong and their arguments flawed but the electrical engineers, medical doctors, etc. – who never imagined they would be in a position to debate something as self-evident as evolution – had a difficult time spotting all the falsehoods and fallacies. As has been alluded to often in many science blogs, there’s more to winning a debate than being right.) This ability to have “scholarly” discussions with those having many more years of education made them a kind of “professor” in their own social circles.
Social status, scholarly discussions, a large collection of paperback books from the local “Science” section of the popular bookstore. My friends thought very highly of themselves. They had never studied logic or critical thinking or the scientific method, but they must know science because they could debate with real scientists. Looking back, I wished I had done more to point them away from the pseudo-scientists towards real science. Being that I was young myself, however, I thought the occasional “Intelligent Design? Don’t be stupid.” comment should have been more than sufficient to cure them of their silly ideas.
——————————-
One of my old friends is finding his way back to science now. It has not been easy. That simile about heroine earlier was not just an idle comparison – abandoning pseudo-scientific beliefs brings a kind of emotional (sometimes more than emotional) withdrawal. My friend is finding that his social circle, one that has been relatively stable for more than a decade, is changing. His sense of self-worth is radically altered and his confidence is shaken. There were days recently when he would be furious with himself for believing completely such blatant falsehoods for so long. Then there were other days, a little further back in time, when he wondered if maybe Intelligent Design had been right after all. Was there any possible way that Intelligent Design could make sense? Was accepting evolution worth losing friends over? Worth giving up social status?
We really only get to choose what we believe if we first choose to close our eyes to the objective reality around us. Once we choose to be aware of that objective reality, we give up our right to “choose” what we believe. Instead we accept the responsibility to investigate and reason our way through life. We try to make the best decisions we can using tools like the scientific method and critical thinking.
All his life my friend was trying to be aware of the objective world around him. He was never one to choose to close his eyes. He wanted to know what was real.
I think there are others out there like my friend. I don’t know if Duane is one of them or not. It is nice to imagine, though, that others like my friend might stumble across Dr. Novella’s posting and that it might push them just a little bit further towards opening their eyes to a truly marvelous world.
- S. Novella
I suppose that depends upon the exact definition of ‘modern times’.
As quite clear examples, I can think of, (off the top of my head), giving the ‘new’ paradigms’ names to identify them:
* Continental Drift (accepted in the mid 1970s)
* Big Bang postulate (1960s)
* That baryonic matter comprises only a fraction of the universe (2000s)
The previous paradigms to the above were solidly in place for millennia, and completely orthodox.
(The ‘aether’ theory being overthrown possibly does or does not belong to ‘modern times’. I think that it does, but that may be merely by virtue of the number of times that I have orbited Sol!)
I’m sure that given a few more minutes thought that I could remember another handful of examples.
So, this brings into question as to what you exactly mean by your above assertion, for as it seems to me, it does not exclude my examples.
Dweller
“I am still a theist – I’d call myself a Christian…”
You accepted evolution but you didn’t take the next logical step in your journey towards knowledge and truth. You are resting in the shade but it’s time to take up the journey once more.
“there is no alternative other than that more complex forms of life evolved from simpler forms of life, in a progression that was not guided by a designer except possibly at the point of abiogenesis.”
Why stop at abiogenesis? Why stop at cosmology? If god didn’t create us perhaps he didn’t create life either. Or the universe. Outside of evolution, are you really very different from Duane?
“I just chose to believe the opposite at the same time and eventually cognitive dissonance became too much.”
That’s how it happened for me. But then the dissonance rolled on to life, the universe, and everything.
“You can change hearts and minds. I’ll be honest, not a single one of the evolutionists who were vital in persuading me were anything but unfailingly polite and I was held up and hampered by those who were rude and dismissive. ”
I’ve actually learned from both. The trick is not to get upset by what some anonymous person writes about you or your opinions on the internet. It’s like a game of AFL football: give your opponent heaps during the game, then off to the pub for a pint or two.
Rob Hebert
“You know, when I think back to my own rejection of religion and (later) certain ideological political beliefs, I don’t think there was ever a moment that I had some epiphany. Every time I argued with other people, I’d dig my heels in deeper during the argument–but if they had really good points, they would needle me mentally. As in, I might “win” the argument, but I might feel a bit of cognitive dissonance afterward. That stuff *slowly* brings down, brick by brick, the mental wall you erect to protect your lovely, cherished beliefs. The wall never comes crashing down, but eventually it’s just not there anymore. Repeated confrontation with the absurdity of your beliefs makes it painful to retain them.”
I can identify with that process.
Karl Withakay,
“You don’t have to spend too much time studying the concept of what a species is to understand that it’s a bit of a fuzzy concept. Try looking up ring species if you’re so sure that there is always a clear distinction of what constitutes a distinct species.”
The historical view of species generation is even fuzzier.
If you were able to follow evolution on the ground as it were, you would only ever see gradual change (always “microscopic” and never “macroscopic” in the language of our denier). The fact that the change is always gradual means that the transformation of one species into two species is never obvious when it is happening. Later on, it is obvious that one species has given rise to two distinct species. But it has always occurred at some time in the past, and you can never put your finger on the point at which it occurred.
This reminds me of the part in Dawkins’ book “The Greatest Show…” where he recants the interview with the woman who keeps saying something along the lines of “Show me the evidence…” and he does, she ignores him and repeats her “Show me the evidence…” rebuttal. They seem to have memorized the responses, although at least this guy does seem to hear what you say- but I’m not sure that he’s actually listening.
Well written posts, all of them, inspiring and encouraging. My respect. I wonder how you can afford the time.
Can you imagine how ridiculous this discussion would sound to someone, say thousand years ahead. I suppose as if Barney and Freddy arguing which flint-stone is is better to light a fire.
Reply to Michael Kingsford Grayon 15 May 2010 at 3:59 am:
Perhaps the remark you refer to should be expanded and clarified, but to me the meaning is clear and would exclude your examples for the following reason: the paradigms you refer to were mainly unevidenced speculations (e.g., the luminiferous ether and the Steady State Theory – they had little or no experimental or observational data backing them, much less 150 years of data). By the way, I think you mean the tectonic plate theory, not the continental drift theory which preceded it, which was based on the observation that the shapes of the continents fit together but without a sound mechanical explanation.
I read somewhere that the Chinese believed for millennia that the Daughter of the Jade Emperor lived on the moon, and many lost that paradigm when the Apollo moon landings were televised. I see that as similar to the sort of paradigms you have given as examples – in a reductio ad absurdum sense. When we had no data on dark matter we didn’t know it existed, similarly.
I think you are taking an unbalanced position. Accepting proof is required for evolution, but not demanding similar proof for creationism.
I’m with Darwin on the view that a created Universe would leave a lot of traces. This means that the existence of a creator is a scientific question, and is kind of a given for a created universe that there is (or was) a creator.
“God did it” isn’t a theory. A theory would explain how we know god did, would make testable predictions to distinguish “god did it” from “life evolved”. Did Duane offer anything like this? If not you should ask. I’m particularly interested as to why the creator worked so hard to make it look like life evolved.
Does this not feel like a tennis match between a pro and someone who never even held a racket before and who’s understanding of the game came from people who thought their wives had affairs with there instructors?
Really, what point of view does Duane have? Is it “I have no clue, so you can’t have one either?”
Steve, you might think it is time well spent. I think this case is supplying a addict with a fix.
I enjoyed rereading the stories about the fossils. So I had my fix also. Thanks.
“There is no example of the scientific community in modern times being completely wrong about a 150 year consensus such as evolution. ”
It depends on how you define “completely” and “consensus.” If the Neo-Darwinians represent the consensus, with their modern times synthesis, their recent and not so recent critics such as Fodor, Shapiro, Jablonka, et al, would hold that the doctrine of the selective process operating on the organism rather than the organism operating on the process has had that part completely bass ackwards.
And if Darwin were still around, he’d likely agree.
@Big Ugly Jim, the word species is a very difficult to define. Basically you speak of two species when their populations have stopped interbreeding. Not because they no longer can’t, but often because they just don’t. Could be that smells or colors do not attract mates, physical properties make it difficult, offspring is not viable or just being in the same place at the same time does not happen.
Talking about dogs giving birth to cats is a really problematic example. Try to think in worms, flies, krill, fish, plants and fungi. It can take a biologist a long time dissecting specimens to understand that they indeed are no longer the same species.
The wonderful thing about tiny creatures is that they often live in huge numbers and leave mountains of deposits, so you can see speciation happen. But we like our animals just the same we like our food: in easy to swallow bites, in easy to recognize colorful containers and within our grasp.
And just as you might miss some of the finer points of cuisine, you’ll not notice the finer points about speciation.
SimonW,
“a created Universe would leave a lot of traces. This means that the existence of a creator is a scientific question”
Yes, this makes nonsense of the NOMA (Non-Overlapping MAgisteria) view of Stephen Gould that science and religion are separate ways towards truth, with science dealing with natural causes and religion concerned with supernatural causes and moral and ethical values.
Science can indeed provide evidence against supernatural phenomena. In fact, it can reduce the concept of god to the non-interventionist deistic god (who simply triggered off the big bang and then disappeared) and which very few people actually believe in.
Morals and ethics also work better when it is informed by science (what is fair?, what works?, and what makes people happier?) than when it is informed by religious dogma (which religion?, whose dogma? why this religion?)
How the universe came to exist is a scientific question. How life arose on earth is a scientific question. Final causation that would have a bearing on these events is in part a scientific question. The part that involves the ephemeral or extramundane nature of the chimerical final causer (aka: god) is not.
I agree w/ most here that Duane isn’t the fair-minded man he claims to be and yes to the extent of convincing Duane his creationist worldview is wrong the exercise will likely turn out fruitless. But as an education piece on how to counter anti-evolutionary argument and tackle the naysayers this was excellent stuff indeed. It takes patience and it requires practice but Steve had the goods at every turn. I don’t think Duane enjoyed being boxed in by having his demands for “evidence” met and then challenged to come up with an alternative scientific explanation on his own. He obviously feels much more comfortable in a rhetorical pissing match than actually solving problems or accounting for evidence.
Personally I’m a great one for ridicule and out-of-hand dismissals but I’ll keep this well mannered but thorough take down in mind in the future. Very satisfying.
Hey let’s not forget the entertainment value as well! I had fun reading this.
For Papu,
“In my profession I must interact with a number of prison inmates and it always amazes me how their circular logic, non-sequiturs, and downright fabrications resemble the argumentative style of the religious right. No explanation or reasoning can appeal to either mindset. The frustration I feel in dealing with either demographic is exactly the same.”
Aren’t most criminals religious demographically speaking? Seems like I read somewhere that the ratio of Christians and Muslims to the non-believing secular was far higher in prison populations than general society.
You know there just HAS to be a reason for that.
It’s time for a pogrom. Let’s push these bastards into the sea already.
I wonder if any of those creationist scientists Duane admires are trying to find the biological mechanisms that prevent many years of microevolution from turning into macroevolution. I’d think that finding such a built-in barrier would be worthy of a Nobel.
Could it be that they’d rather just proclaim macroevolution’s impossibility than to put their beliefs at risk by investigating them?
What I don’t understand is why bother? Why bother setting up a false and irelevant dichotomy between religion and science? Actually I do understand… it’s about creating relevance, or at least trying to hold onto it in the last bastion of Christianity (Vatican City excluded of course) in the West. I wonder if Islamic scientists have the same arguments with Muslin creationists?
Dave,
I admire you for dealing with this so tolerantly and patiently. I think this should be an example for everyone regarding how to best deal with anti-science discourse with reason and persistence. I strongly disagree with people saying this is a waste of time. It isn’t obvious, but over time, the truth really does set in and it becomes harder and harder for people to lie to themselves about religious dogma. We really can convince a lot of people with this type of information, it just takes persistence and patience.
As for calling for a “pogrom” that is exactly the kind of banter, that as secular Jew, I find deeply disturbing. (even if it is meant as a joke) Do you really believe these people are mean spirited, or even had much influence in how they arrived at these misguided conclusions. Did they have a say in what sorts of dogma were emotionally sewn into their hearts growing up?
I grew up in an orthodox household, and can tell you firsthand how tear wrenching and catastrophic a crisis of faith is and neglecting that dimension for a believer disqualifies our dialogs from intellectual or emotional purchase. These biases should be contended with, but to dehumanize the people who possess them makes us more than just non-believers, it makes us soulless.
You have the patience of a saint – if such a comparison is appropriate.
While some creationsts seem willing to play the logic “game”, they did not enter into their beliefs by way of logic and evidence. There is no way to become a creationist by logic and evidence, it requires powerful psychological reasons to have such a sinister hold on an otherwise able mind.
I know you know all this, but I think that many well meaning supporters of evolution come to believe that it is possible to reason someone out of creationism. It is a very sad thing that this is almost always impossible.
In your experience, or everyone’s experience, how often do you come into contact with someone who could be considered “on the fence” with respect to evolution and creationism?
As an ex-creationist I found the article historically interesting and brought a wry smile here and there.
What came through strongly to me, however, was not the arguments to and fro (or lack thereof), but rather the brain that creates beliefs that it cannot get past. Why can and do we become militantly ignorant over issues such as this?
I am not comfortable simply saying it is the Dunning Kruger effect, or that Duane is simply an idiot (clearly he can put a great deal of thought and “logic” into his discussion – however misguided). Clearly Duane has a logical brain, but he can only use it at the moment over this issue in a very limited uni-directional way.
Thinking also of the recent SGU show discussing hypnotism and how we can surrender our executive thinking to someone (or something) else, I really wonder – what is the evolutionary purpose of giving our logic over to an idea, and then (maybe) spending our brain resources trying to justify it later? Can surrendering our logic to another person, a group or even an idea, be a survival mechanism? Subsequently, do the Duanes of the world hang tight to their beliefs as a matter of “survival” – hence the inability to question it/them?
Why are we humans so keen to look to things outside ourselves and find a meaning to life other than simply what is here in front of us right now?
Lots of questions – absolutely no facts – my kind of discussion
The thing that facinates me most is the number of comments for this post. It must be related to the relationship between skepticism, atheism and religion. I come to skeptism from a science and logic angle, and I am more interested in the posts regarding these (more directly regarding these). I understand the utility of reading a conversation like this, but I’m almost bored (when not frustrated) with Duane’s responses. I don’t know how you maintain the patience to refute the same “arguments” over and over again.
“I suppose that depends upon the exact definition of ‘modern times’.
As quite clear examples, I can think of, (off the top of my head), giving the ‘new’ paradigms’ names to identify them:
* Continental Drift (accepted in the mid 1970s)
* Big Bang postulate (1960s)
* That baryonic matter comprises only a fraction of the universe (2000s)
The previous paradigms to the above were solidly in place for millennia, and completely orthodox.
(The ‘aether’ theory being overthrown possibly does or does not belong to ‘modern times’. I think that it does, but that may be merely by virtue of the number of times that I have orbited Sol!)
I’m sure that given a few more minutes thought that I could remember another handful of examples.
So, this brings into question as to what you exactly mean by your above assertion, for as it seems to me, it does not exclude my examples.”
I have to agree with Mr. Grey. Still, as a layperson, I wouldn’t be comfortable challenging consensus, but I do hope there are experts in science generally willing to challenge the current paradigm, working within the system. Historically speaking, I think it’s interesting the roadblocks and bias against certain new ideas.
Regarding examples in modern types (vaguely defined) of a consensus like evolution being overturned – none of the examples given are good analogies. What we have are either pre-scientific ideas that were eventually overturned by a robust scientific theory, or a deepening understanding without overturning the core facts.
That life evolved and is all related through common descent is the core idea of Evolution and it will never, in all probability, be overturned. Similar to DNA as the stuff on inheritance, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of motion, etc. We may discover a deeper principle, an may find tweaks to the how these things operate – but the core facts likely won’t change.
Plate tectonics and the Big Bang did not refute established scientific theories so much as pre-scientific ideas that persisted simply because nothing had yet replaced them.
I maintain that there is no scientific theory analogous to evolution that was found to be completely wrong.
Regarding:
* Continental Drift (accepted in the mid 1970s)
* Big Bang postulate (1960s)
* That baryonic matter comprises only a fraction of the universe (2000s)
Notice that they are mentioned by the new paradigms’ names only (there were not well established theories that directly contradicted them). These are poor examples because they only point to new understandings or confirmations of old oberservations. They did not prove well established theories wrong, but they filled in gaps in our knowledge.
Its not like there were large bodies of evidence suggesting that continents were stationary. In fact the idea that continents fit each other as if they moved is at least several centuries old. These are evidence of the progression of science only.
One better example of the science community being (mostly) wrong on a theory, but resistant to change in light of evidence, is that H Pylori is a major cause of gastric ulcers. The resistance to that idea was mostly based upon stubbornness and attachment to the stress theory as being THE cause and not science or evidence. It is still over a relatively short period of time that medicine came around and accepted what the evidence suggested (as the evidence accumulated).
Keep in mind that “dogma” that get overturned are always based upon poor or no evidence to begin with… so its not like evidence points in one direction, and then BAM a new theory is proves it wrong
Woops I guess I posted just after Steve, in which he pretty much makes the same points
enjay111,
“Can surrendering our logic to another person, a group or even an idea, be a survival mechanism? ”
You have to think in terms of genes. A gene wants to survive into the next generation. It is an advantage for a gene to group with other genes in the form of a cell and help each other into the next generation. Similarly it is advantageous for a cell to group together with other cells in the form of animals. Finally, it is advantageous for animals to group together with other animals in order to enhance their chances of survival into the next generation.
For this last group this is especially true if the groups consist of animals that are genetically related. In pre-industrial times, such groups were quite small and hence most members were genetically related. If the individuals in the group contained genes that result in them surrendering themselves to the group, the group would have a survival advantage over one where all the individuals rated self interest above the group.
Hello. I just discovered your blog. Thanks for all the time and effort you put into this. I’m not a scientist but a filmmaker, and reading your blog, partially anyway, follows the advice I was given to always surround myself with people who are smarter than me.
Regarding this post, I thought I’d share another really helpful piece of advice:
Don’t argue with fools because the people who pass by can’t tell the difference.
Many thanks,
P
I certainly think that evolution will not be overturned per se, but a new idea that is more explanatory (expanding on natural selection) could certainly come about. Newton’s theory of gravity is accurate at normal, everyday distances and powers, but breaks down at very small and very large forces. Quantum theory and relativity is currently known as incomplete., but is a good example of a new paradigm. Consensus can be wrong and has been wrong, period, and it’s dangerous to think otherwise.
Of course, the idea that ID will be the new paradigm is just ridiculous.
I think the best example of scientific consensus changing in the past 150 years is the luminferous ether.
ccbowers:
That’s actually what makes it a *good* example. The idea of continents moving was old indeed — but scientists had examined it and found it wanting. They had no evidence of continents actually moving (as they lacked the ability to measure arbitrary points with sufficient precision), they had no knowledge of any force which would cause seemingly solid masses of rock to float about, and they had a few pieces of more recent data which *refuted* the idea.
1. The sea has a floor, so continents must go all the way down. The continents were not rafting on the oceans; they were heavier than the oceans, and were essentially vast plateaus emerging from the sea, whose floor was basically a plain (as far as they knew). What could the continents possibly be moving *on*?
2. The most compelling evidence (prior to paleontological evidence) was the coastlines of Africa and South America. But through the 18th and 19th centuries, maps got better and better, and it soon became apparent that these coastlines didn’t line up as well as all that. The resemblance is superficial; they don’t actually fit together.
3. Once paleontology really got going, people started noticing animals that had appeared on separated landmasses. But then they discovered that horses and camels had left America and mammoths and mastodons had colonized it (along with humans) via a land bridge across the Bering Strait. This was compellingly similar to things like the Dardanelles, which were once dry. The idea of moving continents was suddenly not required to explain the fossil evidence.
So the idea of continental drift had been proposed, enjoyed some popularity, been studied, and been *rejected* because it just didn’t fit the available evidence. That changed mostly because of four really big discoveries:
A. Underwater volcanism, particuarly at the mid-Atlantic ridge. Land wasn’t just made on land; it was made in vast swaths across the bottom of the sea. There, the seafloor was clearly spreading, providing motive force for continental drift. This discovery required sonar and deep sea submersibles.
B. The continental shelves; Africa and South America don’t line up perfectly, but their continental shelves *do*. This discovery required sonar mapping expeditions.
C. The Earth’s mantle, which is semiliquid, and upon which continents most certainly can float. This discovery required carefully coordinated seismology observations.
I don’t think continental drift is really a bad example, because it wasn’t just replacing some sort of ancient default assumption. It was replacing a genuine scientific consensus. What’s more, it replaced a consensus that was itself specifically contradicting continental drift.
Steve Novella:
I’d like to quibble at that. The genetic evidence leaves no room for doubt that all the life on Earth that we’ve studied so far descended from a common ancestor. That still leaves room for doubt; there may be life forms which we have not yet discovered which arose independently. (Though odds are probably good that they’re undiscovered because they are extinct.) Truthfully, I kind of hope we do find such life, born of the same processes on the same world but of a separate lineage, because it would give great hope of finding life on another world. I would like life to be abundant in this universe, and the odds of that go up remarkably if it has arisen more than once.
Still, we haven’t found any other lines yet. And the universe is a mostly empty place. We could be alone in the vast, echoing void…..
Of course – all scientific conclusions are tentative, and a consensus about the current state of scientific knowledge can change, as has happened many times in the past.
But please don’t neglect a very important part of my statement – a consensus LIKE EVOLUTION has never been overturned. No example brought up comes anywhere even close.
The ether was a hypothesis used to explain what light propagates through – it fell as soon as it was empirically tested.
Tectonic plates replacing the static model was a big paradigm shift, but the older model was just the best model at the time, not a robust theory that survived thousands of potential falsifications.
That H. pylori received significant resistance is more of a myth than reality. And, it turns out, the stress model of ulcers was based on mostly basic science and clinical extrapolation, not much else.
Further – deepening our understanding is not the same thing as being wrong. Newtons laws of motion are not wrong, they are incomplete. Einstein did not prove Newton wrong, just that his classic mechanics are a subset of a deeper and more fundamental law.
The same kind of deepening may be true for evolution, but we will not discover that life in fact did not evolve at all but was created. There is simply no analogy to that in the history of science.
That kind of deepening most certainly is true for evolution; it happens all the time. We know details of evolution today which Darwin didn’t. I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that you are falling into exactly the same trap as many creationists — thinking that evolution is some monolithic entity that hasn’t changed since Darwin thought it up.
Only if you define “a consensus like evolution” as “a consensus which involves evolution”. I really do think you are being far too nitpicky over this, and distracting from your own points. And if we want to talk logic, the nebulous “like evolution” allows you to reject out of hand any counterexamples by saying they’re not adequately like evolution — which in fact is exactly what you are doing.
The ether wasn’t just a hypothesis. It was a full-blown theory, and it was used to make certain predictions which survived experimental study. And it didn’t “fall apart the first time it was tested”. I realize that’s how the average high school science class describes it, but the full story is quite a bit longer and more complex.
I am not arguing that I think evolution is liable to fall the same way someday. I see absolutely no reason to expect that. I just saying that yes, scientists do sometimes find out that a well-established model was wrong. And it’s AWESOME when they do! Fascinating stuff! Creationists act like it’s some sort of scandal, but it’s actually when science gets the most exciting. It’s also what separates science from religion, because science lets people recognize it when they’re wrong.
In science, the only thing better than being proven right is being proven wrong in interesting ways.
Calli – I am not being nitpicky. I am drawing a very real distinction between a scientific theory being shown to be wrong vs a deepening understanding. I agree that our understanding of evolution has been deepening ever since Darwin – that’s my point. Darwin didn’t even know about genetics.
But that is completely different from the difference between life on earth being the result of evolution and sharing common descent, vs special creation. No scientific theory as robust as evolution, or anything even close, has been shown to be that wrong. Why is that so hard to understand.
The ether was never a robust theory. I know the story is a long one – but I don’t think you can say that empirical evidence supported the existence of the either. Experiments showed that the earth was not stationary with respect to the ether, and then that the earth was not moving with respect to the ether. This created a significant problem for the notion of an ether from early on.
Again – there is no point in quibbling, the blatant historical fact is that the notion of an ether was nowhere near an established consensus as a scientific fact like evolution. I know that “like evolution” is a vague criterion – but in the context of this discussion, I have made it quite clear, and my point is that there is nothing even close. No one here has given an example that comes anywhere near the solid consensus and mountain of evidence that establishes evolution as a fact.
Hostile secondary source would be a great name for a band.
Is anyone here arguing that evolution will be overturned? If not, then what are we talking about? That alone proves Steve’s point.
All of the examples given had flimsy evidence to begin with, and do not have multiple lines of lines of evidence confirming them like evolution does. Steve I’ll take your word that the resistance to the H Pylori theory is exaggerated, but that really isnt the point. I admit that it is a poor example since there weren’t many multiple lines of evidence supporting it. Same holds for estrogens and cardiovascular events; vitamin E and heart disease. These at best were commonly held assumptions based upon weak evidence.
Thank you for posting this. At first I was dissapointed that you even bothered arguing with Duane as he clearly follows the cookie cutter creationist rebuttals. However, After you pointed out that posts like this present an opportunity for curious researchers I understood it’s real importance.
I am currently very frustrated as I am locked in a debate with my college instructor. (I’m 34 and active-duty military working on my bachelors, not a youngster). The class is “Writing Arguments”. Anyway, my teacher has a doctorate but also happens to be a self-proclaimed evangelical christian. I hoped that wouldn’t be an issue but I soon began disagreeing with him after he made a statement about how science has shown that you can change your own genetics and that gay people can choose to change their’s so homosexuality won’t continue in the gene pool. I felt that was out of line and argued that he has no right to judge someone else’s lifestyle.
Things got really bad 3 weeks ago (class is once a week) when he made the class sit through the “Icons of Evoloution” video and it conveniently ended at the end of class time so I didn’t have a chance to dispute this propoganda. I felt particularly bad for the younger people in my class who probably don’t know much about the subject and may have believed the lies portrayed in the video. The following week I thoroughly explained the agenda of this video and of Dr. Wells especially and even handed out some evidence I printed off the web to classmates. If you can believe it, last week he showed the intelligent design “origins” video, again with no discussion allotted afterwards.
My point is posts like this may have benefited those in my class who were confused about the truths of evolution. I wrote a paper about how religion hinders science but stopped on page 4 and decided that I was wasting my time as my instructor was in the same camp as Duane, a true-believer. Don’t worry I’m planning on reporting my concerns to the University but I can’t help feeling the damage is done. Keep doing what you’re doing, it’s helping.
Of course evolution won’t be overturned. But that’s like saying astronomy won’t be overturned. Or physics won’t be overturned even if string theory might be. But when Steve refers to the “150 year consensus” as representative of evolution’s permanence as a theory, that consensus, as further represented by the modern synthesis, could be in serious jeopardy. But I’ve already commented on that and been shot down. So as far as I’m concerned, for this thread, the matter is closed.
bindle-
In the context of Steve’s conversation with a creationist we are talking about evolution in the broader sense, which is in no way controversial.
Of course it’s controversial, because the biggest bone of contention is design, one side saying there was design and god did it, and the other saying god didn’t design anything because design is neither necessary nor inherent to the process. Those who would suggest the possibility of biological self-engineering as accounting for the appearance of design are ushered out of the room.
I call that a non-troversy. The belief in a god is irrelevant to the science unless a person lets that belief prevent him from seeing things clearly. If thats the case then we are no longer talking about logic and argument, but simply faith and belief. We cannot have a meaningful discussion in that context.
Lets not make up controversies because some people don’t want facts to get in the way of their worldview. True controversies exist when both sides reasonably acknowledge certain facts (perhaps not all), but differ in the interpretations of the facts. On the other hand the non-troversies exist because one side rejects the facts that they don’t like… they are deniers. You see this with evolution, antivaccinators, holocaust deniers, etc.
If only it were that simple.
I remember when I first read about bacteria being the cause of peptic ulcer disease. My reaction was “Really? What’s the evidence?” Once that was answered, I had no problem accepting it.
@bindle,
You stated that “Of course it’s controversial, because the biggest bone of contention is design”. When intelligent design was proposed about 20 years ago, it seemed to offer at least a working hypothesis or framework for examining natural organisms and looking for features that might be better explained by design than by evolution. But, that was all. There was no evidence or data that could not be explained by the process of evolution. And since then, the evidence in support of design has proven to be extremely thin gruel indeed.
It consists mostly of looking at complex features, not understanding or being able to personally explain how they evolved, and asserting that they must have been designed. But, that is not evidence. It is only an argument from personal incredulity.
And, it became clear in the evidence presented at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial that it was really just a scientific sounding placeholder replacement for creationism, a way of trying to shoehorn creationism back into the biology curriculum.
Until there is some evidence that is better explained by design than by evolution, the controversy exists only in the minds of those who keep looking for some reason to argue against evolution. Do you know of such evidence and can you direct us to where it was published? I haven’t seen it in your earlier comments.
Perhaps it will be informative to compare it to a controversy in the field of astronomy from the last 50 or 60 years. When Hubble discovered that objects in the universe were moving away from each other, it was a major blow to the previous assumption that the universe had been going on pretty much the way it was now practically forever. This was called the steady state model. An expanding universe raised several questions for which data were lacking. Was there enough mass in the universe to slow this expansion and pull the universe back together or would it go on forever? How long had the universe been expanding and had it at some previous time been confined to a tiny volume or even a point? Evidence to determine answers to these questions was lacking.
The astronomer and writer Fred Hoyle and others (who were more comfortable with a steady state universe) proposed an alternate model where instead of all matter being created at some instant in the past, matter was continuously being created somewhere in the vast reaches of space. Evidence of this process was never detected, but it was at least scientifically plausible because there were lab experiments showing that under the right conditions sufficient electromagnetic energy could be converted into matching pairs of particles and antiparticles.
However, as evidence in support of the big bang theory continued to emerge, in particular the cosmic microwave background radiation, and no evidence in support of continuous creation could be discovered, even Fred Hoyle gave up on the continuous creation hypothesis and acknowledged that it was wrong.
Compare that with the actions of design/creationism advocates who continued to argue that because they disagreed there was a controversy and therefore the controversy should be taught. Which sounds like circular reasoning and nothing more.
Bindle – I have been very clear that what I am talking about is that life on earth arose through evolution and is all related through common descent. (I will add the caveat of – known life).
Even some notion of self-design by organisms would not contradict this – you are talking about mechanism, not the historical fact of evolution or common descent. So your entire point is a non sequitur.
But as an aside – I am not impressed with predictions that the current synthesis of evolution is in jeopardy or about to be discarded or even significantly modified. I don’t buy the notion that organisms are designing themselves. Maybe there are some epigenetics nibbling around the edges, but this does not appear to be a core process of evolution nor does it challenge natural selection working on essentially random variation.
I have yet to even hear from the self-design crowd a cogent and testable theory.
Paulflip – are you sure your professor is not pulling your leg, given that you are taking a course on writing arguments? That would be a nifty way to get the students really interested – pretend to be a nutjob with a bunch of wacky ideas and challenge your students to knock them down.
Steven, when it comes down to it, all the talk IS about evolution as a mechanism. But functioning to serve what or whose purposes? Nature’s, some god’s, or more concisely and directly, the organism’s?
Wow Dr. Novella I have to say it’s surreal to be having a dialogue with you directly. I’m a big fan.
Anyway, I have definitely considered that because of his contradictory nature of explaining critical thinking and then showing a video like that. For instance, he brought up the anti-vaccination movement as an example of irrational denial of evidence but then on the same night aligned himself with the ID’ers. Incidentally, I turned in a causal paper on how Generation Rescue has caused a resurgence in Measles outbreaks that night as well which he graded an A.
However, if he was going for a motivational approach I don’t think the amount of time associated with showing both videos would be necessary. Two students actually walked out as soon as he put on the Origins video. I stayed just to not give him the satisfaction but I threw up in my mouth a couple of times in my effort to make it through the video.
Additionally, I didn’t mention it before but concerning his anti-homosexual statements there is a female student in the class that dresses overtly male and carries herself as you would expect if she were homosexual. That is total assumption I know but my point is that when he made that statement it occurred to me that if she is gay that would be very hurtful to her. She is fresh out of high school too so for one of her first experiences with college education to have this result could be very damaging. If the instructor is behaving this way for the sake of promoting argument it seems like going unnecessarily far. I also don’t accept the risk as a lot of students drop the class for different reasons and if they assume the efficacy of the ID argument, then don’t return that’s one more person out there casually passing on to their friends that evolution is false. I think there’s better ways to play devil’s advocate.
Your thoughts?
bindle-
Is that you artfulD? You two should talk.
You are asking the ‘why’ which is irrelevant when we are talking about the who, what where and when.
Steven, as to whether the self-design crowd is working on a cogent and testable theory, check out this example of what these people are doing: And the designs.
Self-engineering Capabilities of Bacteria
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618491/pdf/rsif20050089.pdf
@bindle
Those who would suggest the possibility of biological self-engineering as accounting for the appearance of design are ushered out of the room.
No, those who suggest that organisms often act collectively to suit their purposes and that this might appear to have an overarching design, even though it doesn’t, are acknowledged as saying something which has long been known to be true as well as accountable for within current understandings of evolution.
But functioning to serve what or whose purposes?
It doesn’t function to serve purposes; evolution is non-interested.
The paper you linked to says that bacteria exhibit rudimentary communication and work collectively to achieve goals. This changes nothing about evolution and is not evidence of ‘self-design’. The bacteria are not selecting traits they want to be transmitted. Their activities may select traits that will be transmitted, but that applies to all organisms and does not warrant the appellation ‘self-designed’ in the context of evolution.
There are regularities in human behavior which, like any regularity, take the form of ‘designs’ or ‘patterns’ but it is misleading to say that human evolution is ‘self-designed’.
Bindle, while this is interesting, it is not relevant to our discussion. Yes – we have been learning a great deal recently about bacterial organization and function at the colony level. This is all really exciting – but does not call into question the basic mechanisms of evolution, nor does it represent self-design at an evolutionary level.
It is self-design in the same way that bees building a bee hive is self-design. Higher level complexity can arise spontaneously from lower level behaviors – and this higher level complexity can contain much more information than the behaviors that bring them about – and therefore the genes that code for those behaviors. There is more information in a newborn brain than there is in all the genes that code for the brain – because of “self-organization” following rules laid out in the genes.
What these authors are describing is exactly analogous to that. They also describe evidence for epigenetic factors that can influence how the colony reacts to stress.
However, they heavily use metaphors that should not be confused for their literal meaning – like “decision-making” among the bacteria.
In short – bacteria colonies possess many higher order functions and adaptability at the level of the colony. This has nothing to do with the mechanisms of evolution itself, nor is it a threat to the modern synthesis. At most this is a deeper level of complexity, but not one which overturns the more superficial levels.
“I don’t buy the notion that organisms are designing themselves. Maybe there are some epigenetics nibbling around the edges, but this does not appear to be a core process of evolution nor does it challenge natural selection working on essentially random variation.”
Don’t you think that we, as a species, are coming to that capability?
We will likely gain the ability through technology to take the reigns of our own evolution. We are on the cusp of making an artificial bacterium, and advances in genetics will likely give the ability to alter our own genomes, or design them from scratch. Now that would be real intelligent design.
Perhaps, from one point of view, this can be considered an extension of evolution – we evolved a technological intelligence which has become the ultimate epigenetic factor that can influence our own evolution.
Steven, the authors call this self-engineering and you feel they are wrong to do so. Time will tell who’s right. But my purpose was to demonstrate that someone in that “crowd” is in fact working on the theory, and has the capability of being taken seriously.
And by the way this was just one example of many that could be cited. I don’t have any way of knowing if they are right.
And as an aside, it’s important to make the distinction between having a purpose and serving one. If evolution doesn’t serve one, then perhaps it’s wrong to label it as a function.
Steven, I didn’t see your latest comment before I posted mine. But that was a good summation.
bindle – I don’t have a problem with the term “self-engineering” – it just does not, in this paper, refer to evolution. It refers to engineering higher order colony structures via a self-assembly which, by following simple rules of communication and environmental triggers, adds complexity and information to the overall result.
Again – it’s like bees building a bee hive. The bees have not designed or engineered the bee hive, either individually or collectively. They are simply following their programming, and that programming which results in behaviors out of which a bee hive emerges has been selected for and refined by evolutionary mechanisms.
The bacteria seem to have even more complex colony behavior, in that their constructs are adaptive to the environment, which is neat. This is also not surprising, for bacteria have as long an evolutionary history behind them as we do.
But again – none of this has anything to do with the underlying mechanisms of evolution.
Steve,
The paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618491/)
makes reference to mutants and mutation at least 9 times, including more than one reference to “well documented but rarely studied phenomenon of bursts of sectors of mutations that overgrow (expand faster) the original colony.” So the inference is quite strong that they are referring to self-engineering with a direct evolutionary potential.
Again, they may be wrong in their assumptions, but it seems clear they’re testing the hypothesis that bacteria could be self-evolving. And why wouldn’t they be testing that when they have this perfect opportunity to do so.
“bindle- Is that you artfulD?”
Not unless he has deserted his pig-headed certainty they he is right and everyone else is a moron for not understanding that whilst simultaneously being totally wish-washy about what exactly it is that he is certain about.
BillyJoe7-
You are right, bindle is at least engaging in a real conversation, and appears to be using the same language as everyone else. Also the discussion also has progressed somewhat after multiple posts. Most of all, what he is saying is mostly understood. Maybe I was a bit presumptuous with that comment based upon insufficient information.
Great job Steve! This is a great resource for responses to common creationist arguments. I’ll be referring to it often, thanks! You showed much more patience than I probably could have…
I hope you’ll post his response, unless it’s just the same old arguments. It would be great if he took what you said and went and followed the evidence that you showed him.
I love this format for posts, it would be great if you would regularly post exchanges you have with creationists or other people who disagree with you, as it’s great to see how you pick up on bad arguments that I would probably overlook.
Hey Steve,
You did well and please keep it up. I grew up a fundy xian and spouted these same talking points, even arguing for them with people like you on the blogs. Until one day I actually READ the evidence and had to discard my biases (this was very difficult because it required giving up on the idea that the Bible could be taken literally. I understand why creationists deny the evidence; creationism is attached to a whole web of other beliefs and once it goes, the whole thing crashes down.)
Just wanted to say, sometimes people can be reached. It’s rare but it happened to me.
~Allie
A bit of a latecomer to this thread…
But I find it interesting that creationists, homeopaths, chiropractors and those of similar disposition are increasingly referring to various logical fallacies in their arguments. Of course they are invariably misapplied and it only highlights the fact that they are much more interested in buttressing some preconceived belief than in actually discovering objective truth; but I think it does mean that science and rationality is ultimately winning. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…
Steven: here is a fascinating look into an internal “Apostasy” debate within the Adventist Church regarding one of its educational institutions being put on notice to stop teaching evolution. The professor in question is actively engaged in the comments section.
Forgot the link… http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/05/26/citing_apostasy_michigan_conference_removes_la_sierra_university_employee_subsidy
Human bias and belief are powerful obstacles to overcome. If someone is not willing to see in a different light, then they never will.
Imagine if you could wipe the slate clean and present the evidence for both creationism (you would first need to find some) and evolutionary theory to an intelligent human being that has not been poisoned with any prior knowledge on the subject. The overwhelming evidence would certainly lead this imaginary subject to point to evolution as the only valid scientific explanation for the diversity of life that has and continues to exist on this planet.
I am sad to say that the state government of Queensland in Australia, without a murmur of what was their intent, has introduced the teaching of creation and ID into Queensland state schools.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/creationism-to-be-taught-in-queensland-classrooms/story-e6frf7l6-1225873019548
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/faith-and-science-are-long-divorced-and-dont-have-much-respect-for-each-other/story-e6frerc6-1225875129806
Quote from the Herald Sun newspaper: In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of “controversies”.
ie: it is being snuck in to the curriculum under the guise of being just a topic for discussion.
In the Sunday Mail newspaper this morning there were several letters to the editor on this subject, 2 of which were in support and the other several questioning the decision.
We get the usual “let the students make up their own minds” rubbish from the executive officer of the Associated Christian Schools.
Should we also allow them to make up their own minds about trigonometry or chemistry? If they don’t like the chemistry that they are taught, could they reject that and go with their own version of chemistry?
It seems that in 2005, our Federal Education Minister at the time, Brendon Nelson, commented that ID may have a place in the education system. It’s bad enough that he said that, but when you realise that this man is a medical doctor, you seriously have to wonder where he’s coming from. As a doctor, he has extensive training in the basics of physics, chemistry and biology. How could he then make this comment re ID?
Using the scientific method as the criterion, neither creation nor evolution is an established scientific theory. Evolution is stuck on the 3rd step of the 7-step process, establishing a testable hypothesis. After 150 years, the evolution hypothesis is still being “tweaked” and the 4th step, testing the hypothesis has not yet occurred. As of this date, no peer review publications have been presented that go beyond more observations or modifications to the hypothesis. So, why is evolution being pushed as a “fact”? The scientific method also requires that a proposed principle be “falsifiable”, that is, there is a method to prove the hypothesis false. Since creation is based on the existence of God, and God cannot be proven by science, it is a matter of philosophy or faith, not science. Actually, evolution suffers from that same deficit and is, until the falsifiable requirement is met, more of a philosophical speculation than a scientific theory. An excellent resource regarding the creation-evolution debate can be found at http://sechumanism.blogspot.com/p/secular-humanism.html
Steven – your patience amazes me. You truly are the heir-apparent to Carl Sagan’s throne.
I would like to say firstly that I do encourage you Steve to continue to be patient and do what you do.
What I find disconcerting is that your patience is so impressive, or more to the fact, that it seems like some amazingly rare achievement. So many people put to much emotional investment into exchanges with creationists. Even those who live by rationality and logic are susceptible to the trap of getting emotionally invested in a certain outcome to the point of frustration.
So what if they won’t get the point the several times that you tell it to them? Does it mean that they are stupid? No. Does it mean that you need to get upset? No (I am mainly giving myself this advice by the way so please don’t feel judged).
I would encourage skeptics to try not to let exchanges with creationists leave them feeling disappointed, frustrated and exhausted.
I would also encourage skeptics to avoid the trap of feeling as though their opponent is stupid (or at least incapable of logical examination of the evidence) or too far gone. Sometimes this train of thought seems to be a necessary coping mechanism when frustration sets in.
Realistically, some people may be “too far gone” or you might not be the person to convince them (or maybe you are but you aren’t around anymore by the time the penny drops).
However, it is not the skeptic’s responsibility to convince the true believer. The skeptic need only point to the evidence, and then accept that it is the true believer’s choice as to whether they give the evidence a decent chance to reveal the facts to them.
If we can accept that it is not our responsibility, and take out the emotional investment of being the one that enlightens them, perhaps patience won’t seem so unattainable or rare anymore. Perhaps it will just be something that we exercise with ease.
Anyway, to repeat my earlier point. Thank you Steve for modelling patience very well.
Also, the second paragraph, sentence two, should be typed as:
“So many people put too much emotional investment into exchanges with creationists.”
I should have proof-read that. Please don’t comment on it.