Fossil and Evolution

[Ben Tilly]

Example of plate tectonics? Are you thinking of my example of Fred Hoyle and the Big Bang? Though if you want to talk about plate tectonics, see the case of Sir Harold Jeffreys. After Harry Hess demonstrated plate tectonics in the 1960s to the satisfaction of the vast majority of geologists (he was armed with rather convincing data, including direct measurements of the rate of movement of the plates), Sir Harold refused to accept it. He'd been strongly against continental drift since the 1920s, and wasn't about to accept it. Sir Harold died in 1989, still having never accepted plate tectonics. (The geology journals published his papers "disproving" it for a few years, and eventually stopped.)

A.L. Wegener wrote about the similarities of geology and biology on both sides of separated continents as well as their similar coastline shapes and hypothesized there was once a single continent. It was ~1920. No mechanism was known, I don't know if he postulated one. That is the example I had in mind.

He did postulate a mechanism. It was completely unrealistic. He also misjudged how fast the continents would have to move by a factor of 100. While he clearly did observe the right things and got the right idea, the case against his theory was very strong and remained so until studies of seafloor spreading in the 1950s measured continental drift exactly. Even so, geologists did not generally recognize that the case against his theory had fallen apart until Harry Hess put the pieces together and publically made the case in the 60s.

I'm not sure what point this example illustrates. The trend here was that someone came up with a theory. Theory explains some facts but has big, obvious problems. Not many people find the theory convincing.

Also, I wasn't explaining my continuum on the basis of anything you posted, per se. I was just describing the continuum of "overwhelming evidence" from different perspectives. The examples of the holdouts like Behe had nothing to do with anything you posted.

The more interesting point is when the theory could be considered part of the solid scientific consensus. And I'd cite that point as being in the early 20th century when the population genetics arguments fell apart. I'd say that we'd clearly passed that point when the Modern Synthesis became widely accepted.

(emphasis mine) Would you be talking about the time of the Scopes trial, (1925)? And you call that the time of scientific consensus? What poor communicators those scientists must have been to be unable to convince very many people in the lay community including those in the entire US school system!

Entire US school system? Don't you mean the Tennessee legislature? As for what that says about the state of scientific consensus, I guess that we didn't have scientific consensus in 2004 when Kansas decided to teach intelligent design...

In any case by my understanding of the Scopes trial, it was a draw. Scopes was fined. The fine was overturned on appeal. The law was allowed to stand. But the judge directed prosecuters to not prosecute on it. And in the long-run, Scopes' side won the public opinion battle.

However, I have more evidence than mere opinion. These two papers are from the same web page:

Namely http://www.grisda.org/, which describes itself as, "An Institute of the General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists". Is that exactly an unbiased source...?

DOES EVOLUTION QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE? - Ariel A. Roth; Origins 4(1):4-10 (1977); EDITORIAL

You can see where this discussion is going and it clearly discusses the events of the time, 1977! It certainly doesn't sound like there was a "broad scientific consensus" which you believe occurred decades earlier. It's actually an excellent paper on its own merit, BTW.

I read it. It is filled with quotes from scientists who clearly believe that Darwin's theory of modified descent is actually happening (the most common criticism is that Darwin's theory is a tautology, hence needs no proof), but who don't know whether to call it science due to difficulties fitting it with Popper's criteria. To tell the truth, if you'd seen some of the more esoteric theorizing from "evolutionary theorists", you might likewise have trouble calling some of it science.

ORGANIZATION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE; John C. Walton; Lecturer in Chemistry; University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland

As you may have noted, this paper is one supporting the Intelligent Design hypothesis. "Special Creation", I imagine you are aware, was the early terminology used.

Please note, that paper is about the problem of abiogenesis, not the reality of Darwinian evolution. Even today abiogenesis is not an adequately solved problem. (Given the difficulties that studying the problem poses, we would not expect it to be solved yet. Therefore our lack of success is not in my mind a significant challenge to current scientific theory. And, truth be told, we are making progress on it.) In the 70s the situation was even worse.

So let's look at a couple of issues here to better understand the perspective I am talking about.

First, we seem to agree religious beliefs are not scientific. You want them included in the scientific theories which competed with Darwin's. Neither of us want them included in current science but we recognize there are a few holdouts who have joined the world of science but maintain by various belief schemes, their personal beliefs in gods.

Actually I don't really want them included. I just recognize that it is a historical fact that they were an important part of the actual debate within the scientific community and were regarded as a legitimate part of that debate by scientists of that day. Regardless of my opinions, I have to accept it.

Yet here are 2 editorials written as recently as 1977 with very serious discussion of the science of the day, and the conflict which the theory of evolution poses to the religious belief the Bible correctly describes the origin of species. One of the papers notes, "a statement affirming evolution as a principle of science. The statement, signed by 163 scholars, most of whom are biologists in leading universities of the United States, was prepared for distribution to major public school districts in the United States. Among its sponsors are such notables as Isaac Asimov, Linus Pauling, and George Gaylord Simpson."

It certainly implies there was a change in the scientific consensus, maybe in the previous few years, maybe a decade in the making, it would be hard to pin down. Why else would you have biologists needing to publicly proclaim, it's time to stop arguing about the validity of the theory of evolution?

Why else? Can you really think of no other explanation?

Consider this. In 2005 a group of 38 Nobel laureates issued a public statement that intelligent design is not scientific. Should you conclude from that that there was a lack of consensus in the scientific community about the status of Darwin's theory? Of course not! The cause was that they hoped to influence public debate about whether schools should teach intelligent design.

Similarly in the 70s those scientists were motivated by the exact same issue. There were some high profile court cases about teaching creationism. The public statement was meant to affect both the court cases and the public debate. This exact issue was discussed in one of Gould's essays. If I had them available I could identify the exact essay and then find out which court case in particular motivated that statement. (I believe it was somewhere in Tennesee.)

I agree that the statement indicated a lack of consensus. But it wasn't a lack of scientific consensus. And it was a lack of consensus that (according to poll results) remains to this day.

I completely agree with you about the scientific evidence and consensus if you exclude the large number of scientists who had a much harder time letting go of their previous religious beliefs. Where do you fit in those 'scientists' who continued to look for ways in which Creationism, Special Creation, and speciation was not explained by the theory of evolution? Why do you include them among the serious scientists of Darwin's day, and exclude them in determining your scientific consensus the early 20th century? You include their Biblical 'evidence' in Darwin's day and exclude their 'scientific arguments' of the 70s.

Because in Darwin's day those arguments were routinely getting published in scientific journals, while they weren't in the 1970s.

I don't include Biblical evidence in with true scientific evidence simply because people believed it. But the reality is, as you noted, there are 'scientists' who do (less so every day). I do consider those scientists when assessing the scientific consensus on evolution theory. According to you, Biblical evidence was valid at the time of Darwin. Do you dismiss it's historical scientific validity in the 60s? the 70s? Today? I'm asking about your historical, not personal definition of valid science. And do you negate the arguments and evidence Behe put forth supposedly showing evidence of irreducible complexity in your assessment of "overwhelming evidence"?

I do dismiss it for the reason that I gave above.

About Behe, please note that he basically accepts Darwinian evolution, at least for the last few hundred million years of history. In his words he has, "no quarrel with the idea of common descent." He has big problems with abiogenesis, and thinks God is needed to explain how cells came about. But he has stated that he agrees with Darwin's account of how, say, a light-sensitive spot evolved into an eye.

Since Darwin's theory of evolution specifically excludes abiogenesis, I would count Behe as a supporter of Darwinian evolution. And therefore I have no problem including him in my assessment of "overwhelming evidence". (I'll note, though, that most of the people who run around quoting Behe agree with him a lot less than they think they do.)

We both agree Behe had no case. But how do you fit his hypothesis into the question of whether there was a scientific consensus throughout the scientific community in the early 20th century then, and especially in the 30-40 years ago you say I am wrong to cite?

First of all, what relevance do Behe's statements in the 1990s have on a question of what was believed 30-40 years ago?

Secondly, as I've already noted, Behe is part of the scientific consensus on evolution. He is not on abiogenesis. But on evolution, he is.

Well I'll call it progress. At least you're no longer saying that Creationist claims are based on 40 year old science. And you're no longer denying that they could have understood the basic connection between genes and chromosomes in the 30s and 40s.

Not so. No offense but this is another part of the problem here. You are speaking of this whole issue as if I had the facts all wrong. And I see it as we are merely speaking from two different points of view as to what constitutes overwnelming evidence and scientific consensus.

I guess we have less progress than I'd hoped.

In any case my point of view is that I think you don't appreciate the history well enough to realize when overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus existed.

Who is "they"? You ignore a large body of scientists here who didn't want to believe their Bibles were wrong. And you keep changing your definition of scientific evidence to include or exclude Biblical evidence, depending on what you want to declare. The '40 year old science' I refer to is the scientific rationale that has been repeated in the scientific literature throughout the 20th century. That is the claim that the theory of evolution had not yet proved it could explain speciation. Genetic science ended the debate. But it didn't end it when genetic science was discovered. It ended when genetic science started mapping genomes.

What debate? If you check http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html you'll find that there was a ring species documented in the 1930s and another in 1949. The existence of a ring species proves unambiguously that microevolution can result in speciation. (And you don't need to be able to look at the genes to verify this phenomena.)

40 years ago there was an intense debate about how speciation usually happens. But there was (to the best of my knowledge) no real debate that it was possible.

And about ignoring some group of scientists, I really don't think that I have.

I may not have been unaware of some of the early work in genetic science. Not a big deal. Who knows the history of early work in every single scientific field? But those events have not changed my view that the real point of overwhelming evidence was when we could look at the genomes and trace the line of descent. I'll call it progress when you recognize that drawing a line on a continuum is a subjective decision. And when you explain why and when you exclude Biblical evidence from science and why and when you exclude Bible believer holdouts in your consensus of scientists.

If you'll note, I have explained multiple times why and when I exclude the Bible from science. I exclude it when scientific journals are no longer willing to publish it. For more on why one might take this point of view of science you might want to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn.

As for drawing the line, you've taken a position that is impossible to really argue against. The only evidence that you'll accept as overwhelming is being able to directly examine the genomes. No amount of data of other types can ever possibly be overwhelming in your world. Nothing that anyone else can say will ever matter.

So you've essentially ruled out all lines of evidence for evolution but one. I find it interesting to compare that point of view to how creationists rule out all lines of evidence for evolution...

But it isn't worth my while to try much harder to convince you on those points. I've spent a lot more energy than I intended on this tangential point. And I'm willing to let our disagreements sit roughly where they are.

Which is what one expects when differences are those of opinion and perspective.

There are other explanations...

You (and Dr A) are looking at when the science actually did overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution, (I have no disagreements with you there). I am looking at when the science was so overwhelming, the 'scientists' who wanted to hold on to their belief in Creation, or Special Creation, or Intelligent Design, or 'evolution theory hasn't proved speciation' simply could no longer deny they were wrong. That came with a thorough understanding of genetic mechanisms and the beginning of manipulating those genes in successfully predicted ways* (30-40 years ago) and more absolutely with genome mapping (10-20 years ago), IMO.

*You could argue selective breeding could predict and test the theory of evolution. But you can also argue until we moved genes from one species to another, we hadn't truly made predictions and tested the theory since breeding between species produced mostly sterile offspring.

As has been noted already, there remain scientists today who continue to deny evolution, and simply cannot be convinced. Period. I know this because I've known some. In fact there is a math PhD who fits this description who will happily tell you that he could never have obtained his PhD without my help. (He'd failed his topology qual twice and was going to get kicked out after one more failure. I took it on myself to properly teach him topology. After a month of hard work he passed with flying colours. He later repaid me by introducing me to Linux.)

So where do you set the bar?

I set it by asking what respectable peer-reviewed journals are willing to seriously consider in a publication.

I would disagree with someone who said we need the abiogenesis piece of the theory as well but I could understand their perspective. I understand your perspective. You are looking at the real science. I just think you are ignoring the historical science and faulting me for not doing so. I don't see I had my "facts" wrong. You have posted many "facts" I wasn't aware of. But the ones you have brought to my attention do not contradict my statement, "Evolution is a theory that passed into the 'overwhelming evidence for it' phase at least a decade or more ago and anyone but a science purist would probably say it happened 3-4 decades ago. In fact the bulk of arguments evolution deniers put forth are based on 40 year old science". Those science purists would be the ones waiting for the whole theory including abiogenesis.

Let's see. You haven't shown that evolution deniers really are arguing on the basis of 40 year old science. I have shown that knowledgable people would say that it happened a lot longer than 3-4 decades ago.

It is amazing how often major scientific revolutions leave some prominent scientist denying the new world order to their deathbeds.

And in the case of evolution, perhaps much like the early European science of astronomy, the hurdle science must overcome of Biblical indoctrination of young scientists before they are introduced to the fields of science and the scientific process muddies the picture tremendously. Boggles my mind, anyway.

Yes. In some sense creationists who never shake the beliefs they were raised with are direct analogs to prominent scientists who can never accept a new paradigm.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[articulett]

Behe's not really an evolutionist...he hedges:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921-2,00.html

I'm still not against Darwinian evolution on theological grounds. I'm against it on scientific grounds. I think God could have made life using apparently random mutation and natural selection. But my reading of the scientific evidence is that he did not do it that way, that there was a more active guiding. I think that we are all descended from some single cell in the distant past but that that cell and later parts of life were intentionally produced as the result of intelligent activity. As a Christian, I say that intelligence is very likely to be God.

He aims to obfuscate, not clarify.

I think it's hard to pin point when there was a scientific consensus, but it's safe to say, that even before there was a consensus, it was true. In fact, it was true long before humans existed. And I think ever since Darwin postulated the theory, it has been, by far the best explanation, and it has accumulated massive amounts of evidence in it's support--moreover, it's been a great framework for guiding each step further in the discovery. I think it's probably pointless to argue as to when there was a scientific consensus, because the terminology seems to have a lot of differing definitions. Just, like global warming, some people will never admit to there being a scientific consensus. Who decides? I think that in regards to peer reviewed papers, it has been accepted for some time...though for me, the DNA is the clincher--there's no going back now-- the evidence is there for all to see in every cell...and even hanging out in fragments all over outside of cells.

 

[Ben Tilly]

Behe's not really an evolutionist...he hedges:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921-2,00.html

I'm still not against Darwinian evolution on theological grounds. I'm against it on scientific grounds. I think God could have made life using apparently random mutation and natural selection. But my reading of the scientific evidence is that he did not do it that way, that there was a more active guiding. I think that we are all descended from some single cell in the distant past but that that cell and later parts of life were intentionally produced as the result of intelligent activity. As a Christian, I say that intelligence is very likely to be God.

He aims to obfuscate, not clarify.

Oops, you're right. In other words intelligent design.

He doesn't deny the truth of any of the facts that we have supporting evolution. He accepts the outline we've found of how things are descended. He just thinks that there was some..assistance.

(Still it is a long way away from creationism. And he agrees that evolution is happening.)

Cheers,
Ben

 

[JJM]

{snip} (Still it is a long way away from creationism. And he [Behe] agrees that evolution is happening.)

Cheers,
Ben

At the Dover trial, it came out that Behe helped write "Of Pandas and People" in the 1980s. The organization responsible for that book are pure creationists. The book referred to "creation" till the Supreme Court threw that out of schools, then they did a "find and replace" to change the term to "ID." Ten years ago, I thought Behe was just to clever for himself (i.e., deluded). Since then, I have come to believe Behe's "I am only following science" routine is a sham.

 

[MG1962]

Name one besides god beliefs. And the time line you think left doubt about Darwin's theory, is that the argument people gave at that time? It seems hard to believe they would have had anyway of knowing how fast evolution occurred when the theory was first proposed. I have never read Darwin's work. Does he suggest a timeframe for his theory?

Yes, at the time the border between life on Earth and nothing was the Cambrian period that began around 450 million years ago. Prior to that was the pre-Cambrian. It was one of the issues at the time was the seeing explosion of a fully function biota. They knew they were missing something, but could never be sure what.

At the start of the 20th Century the discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits and more recent finds filled many gaps, and also indicated life extended well back beyond what we thought.

It has to be remembered that Evolutionary Theory as proposed by Darwin is pretty much redundant. He is more remembered for being the person to put the concept on the table

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ben, we're on different wavelengths. You are hung up on being right when there is no right. It's a value, an opinion, a judgment call. You think I disagree with your facts, but I don't. What I disagree with is where you define consensus. Overwhelming evidence depends on one's perspective. However, read on. Where you finally give a benchmark to identify the criteria by which you view consensus, we can now look at our two perspectives more precisely.

I understand your perspective. I wish you'd try to understand mine instead of assuming I am disregarding your facts.

You took my example with plate tectonics which was only to illustrate a continuum, any continuum, and went on a side track about the differences which matter not in this case. I wasn't saying the two cases were exact. Obviously Wegener made some valid observations since he was right in the end. But is was only an example to illustrate a CONTINUUM. That's all. No comparison was intended other than the illustration.

The Scopes trial had the opposite outcome from the Dover trial. The fact you gloss over the difference contradicts your claims of the historical elements you've used to support your other arguments. While I understand you are saying the scientific community differed in Darwin's time, I still think you are underestimating the religious influence on the scientific community after that time. It's not as if one day scientists all woke up. It has been a gradual change.

The facts in the paper I cited stood on their own. The writers were from the scientific community and addressed their objections to evolution theory in scientific detail. Of course it's a biased source! But I have not said I agree with their scientific conclusions. Once again, you use the historical science claim in one case and valid science in the next. Just when did the scientific community throw off the religious blinders and turn to valid science?

Consider this. In 2005 a group of 38 Nobel laureates issued a public statement that intelligent design is not scientific. Should you conclude from that that there was a lack of consensus in the scientific community about the status of Darwin's theory? Of course not! The cause was that they hoped to influence public debate about whether schools should teach intelligent design.

In the example I gave, scientists presented a position paper supporting evolution. In your example you have scientists presenting a position paper refuting the intelligent design movement. Sorry, your comparison just doesn't make your case here.

In any case my point of view is that I think you don't appreciate the history well enough to realize when overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus existed.

Again, you attribute why we disagree to the wrong reason. We may disagree on the numbers of religious scientists who refused to accept the evidence for evolution and where to define the line of consensus. But it isn't because I don't appreciate the actual scientific evidence or time line of its discovery.

As for drawing the line, you've taken a position that is impossible to really argue against. The only evidence that you'll accept as overwhelming is being able to directly examine the genomes. No amount of data of other types can ever possibly be overwhelming in your world. Nothing that anyone else can say will ever matter.

Of course you can't argue against the position I've taken. You still don't seem to understand what my position is. You are arguing about when the scientific evidence convinced me and you. I am not arguing that point at all. I AGREE WITH THAT POINT. I don't have any religious indoctrination to get over.

You deny that there were many mainstream scientists who did have that indoctrination and did not accept the evidence of evolution 40 years ago. There are still some today. How many do you think there were 20 years ago? How many 40 years ago? How about 60? When did scientific objectivity override religious indoctrination?

Your position implies you believe most scientists quit letting their religious indoctrination interfere with their interpretation of evidence well over a half century ago. I believe that is an idealistic point of view which ignores the reality of religious indoctrination.


But, here you are after however many posts in 12 pages and you have finally identified some criteria one can actually judge this CONSENSUS by.

So where do you set the bar?

I set it by asking what respectable peer-reviewed journals are willing to seriously consider in a publication.

I could accuse you of moving the goalpost but instead I'll consider you had a hard time defining where on that continuum, (the continuum you still haven't acknowledged), you stand.

With publications in scientific journals as the criteria, I agree with you. Papers supporting alternative theories were few and far between (panspermia, irreducible complexity) probably going much further back than the 60s. It's hard to know for sure since they aren't as easily accessed as recent papers which have been entered into the data stream. But even today, anti-evolution papers are not published in journals, they are published in books and religious sources. AnswersInGenesis has almost no citations except a few books on their web pages compared to TalkOrigins which has lengthy bibliographies on just about every page. It's a striking contrast.

If we can assume there are scientists among the various religious groups, then one can make some assessment of what the scientific consensus would be by looking at the consensus of various religious groups over the last century.

evolution - Religious criticism and acceptance; Encyclopædia Britannica Article

...Gradually, well into the 20th century, evolution by natural selection came to be accepted by the majority of Christian writers. Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani generis (1950; “Of the Human Race”) acknowledged that biological evolution was compatible with the Christian faith, although he argued that God's intervention was necessary for the creation of the human soul. Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996, deplored interpreting the Bible's texts as scientific statements rather than religious teachings, adding:

New scientific knowledge has led us to realize that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Similar views were expressed by other mainstream Christian denominations. The General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in 1982 adopted a resolution stating that “Biblical scholars and theological schools…find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in Biblical literature.” The Lutheran World Federation in 1965 affirmed that “evolution's assumptions are as much around us as the air we breathe and no more escapable...[snip]..Similar statements have been advanced by Jewish authorities and those of other major religions. In 1984 the 95th Annual Convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis adopted a resolution stating: “Whereas the principles and concepts of biological evolution are basic to understanding science…we call upon science teachers and local school authorities in all states to demand quality textbooks that are based on modern, scientific knowledge and that exclude ‘scientific' creationism.”

Opposing these views were Christian denominations that continued to hold a literal interpretation of the Bible. A succinct expression of this interpretation is found in the Statement of Belief of the Creation Research Society, founded in 1963 as a “professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation” (see creationism):

The Bible is the Written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths....[snip]...In modern times biblical fundamentalists have made up a minority of Christians, but they have periodically gained considerable public and political influence, particularly in the United States. Opposition to the teaching of evolution in the United States can largely be traced to two movements with 19th-century roots, Seventh-day Adventism (see Adventist) and Pentecostalism. Consistent with their emphasis on the seventh-day Sabbath as a memorial of the biblical Creation, Seventh-day Adventists have insisted on the recent creation of life and the universality of the Flood, which they believe deposited the fossil-bearing rocks. This distinctively Adventist interpretation of Genesis became the hard core of “creation science” in the late 20th century...Many Pentecostals, who generally endorse a literal interpretation of the Bible, also have adopted and endorsed the tenets of creation science, including the recent origin of Earth and a geology interpreted in terms of the Flood. They have differed from Seventh-day Adventists and other adherents of creation science, however, in their tolerance of diverse views and the limited import they attribute to the evolution-creation controversy.

During the 1920s, biblical fundamentalists helped influence more than 20 state legislatures to debate antievolution laws, and four states—Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee—prohibited the teaching of evolution in their public schools. A spokesman for the antievolutionists was William Jennings Bryan, three times the unsuccessful Democratic candidate for the U.S. presidency, who said in 1922, “We will drive Darwinism from our schools.” In 1925 Bryan took part in the prosecution (see Scopes Trial) of John T. Scopes, a high-school teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, who had admittedly violated the state's law forbidding the teaching of evolution.

In 1968 the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional any law banning the teaching of evolution in public schools. After that time Christian fundamentalists introduced bills in a number of state legislatures ordering that the teaching of “evolution science” be balanced by allocating equal time to creation science. Creation science maintains that all kinds of organisms abruptly came into existence when God created the universe, that the world is only a few thousand years old, and that the biblical Flood was an actual event that only one pair of each animal species survived. In the 1980s Arkansas and Louisiana passed acts requiring the balanced treatment of evolution science and creation science in their schools, but opponents successfully challenged the acts as violations of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. ...

Current chart of acceptance of evolution theory by country

And the accompanying article, U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution; Aug 06

Religion belief and evolution

The researchers also compared 10 independent variables—including religious belief, political ideology and understanding of concepts from genetics, or “genetic literacy”—between adults in America and nine European countries to determine whether these factors could predict attitudes toward evolution.

The analysis found that Americans with fundamentalist religious beliefs—defined as belief in substantial divine control and frequent prayer—were more likely to reject evolution than Europeans with similar beliefs. The researchers attribute the discrepancy to differences in how American Christian fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity interpret the Bible.

While American fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally and to view Genesis as a true and accurate account of creation, mainstream Protestants in both the United States and Europe instead treat Genesis as metaphorical, the researchers say.

If you recognize the criteria you are using and the criteria I am using differ, you might see we don't disagree on the facts as you seem to think. Rather we are looking at the problem from different perspectives.

 

[Cuddles]

I believe I addressed this once before, pardon a repeat (I can't find my old post). BA vs BS is a philosophical choice at many schools. Some schools offer both. Others want a technically rigorous (BS) program, with few "electives" outside science. While a third category want "more rounded" (BA) students, and restrict the degree requirements in science. Some professions may require a BS (possibly, a certificate to teach phys ed) and "BA only" schools can accomodate that.

This may be a part of it, but I think it is mostly just due to history. When universities started, there was no such thing as science. The first universities gave degrees in arts because that is all there was. Once sciences became actual subjects to be taught, many universities started offering science degrees instead, but some, namely Oxford and Cambridge, stuck with tradition and still give BAs and MAs in science subjects (although even they now offer some BScs as well). The first universities in the USA were modelled on Oxford and Cambridge, and so presumably used a similar system. I think many still offer BAs simply because that is what they have always done, rather than because of any particular choice.

Multiple majors are not necessarily bound together. When taking a BA at some schools, one can choose electives that qualify one in multiple majors.

I don't know much about the American system, but in Britain having multiple things in a degree title doesn't mean anything. A degree in particle physics and astrophysics doesn't mean you've done two degrees or that there is anything in any way special about it. It just means that the degree covers both particle physics and astrophysics and so the title reflects that. Similarly, a degree in Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology would just mean that your course covered all these areas, not that you actually have a degree in three subjects.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

addendum to post 446:

I think we've both added most of the information needed to explain our positions. Going over each point in long posts after people begin repeating their arguments gets tedious and typically goes nowhere. So here is my summary of the two issues of apparent disagreement, and an appeal to you that we don't disagree, we are viewing things from different perspectives.

First, what constitutes "overwhelming evidence"?

You have nicely defined it as when scientific research which either identified problems with evolution theory or supported alternate theories disappeared from scientific peer reviewed journals. You have supported your case that the real science of the 60s-70s contained sufficient evidence supporting evolution theory and none really countering it in any significant way. Again, we don't and never did disagree.

As I looked through papers I could easily find that were published at and before that time period, I did see there was a lot more research than I expected. however, I expected some because genetic science didn't begin when the first genome was mapped.

But there is another side of "the science of 30-40 years ago". That is, despite the new research being added to the theory of evolution, and despite the established evidence, the main argument from evolution deniers then and now is based on the claim, "evolution has not been proved". It is neither based on the claim Creation has any scientific basis or evidence, nor is it based on scientific evidence for any competing theories.

There have been more recent attempts to prove 'irreducible complexity' and to prove the 'improbability' that natural selection accounts for the diversity of life we see today given the time frame established by the geological evidence. Neither of those hypotheses have been established by scientific evidence.

In this context, "overwhelming evidence" is not the evidence for or against evolution theory, it is the degree of certainty.

Degree of certainty is in the eye of the beholder. One has to make a determination when you to say, for all intents and purposes, evolution has been proved. (Ignoring for the sake of the argument theories are not proved per se in science.) But also in this context, the absence of counter evolution theory research in the literature is not surprising. Where one would look for the "science opinion" of the day would be in editorials and opinion pieces in scientific arenas.

Scientists influenced by varying degrees of religious indoctrination might argue evolution was proved:

• in the 20s-30s, when the mechanisms for evolution were established (you have presented more evidence in that time period than I was aware of)

• in the 40s-50s when extensive evidence for evolution accumulated

• in the 60s-70s when evolution theory resulted in testable predictions which were tested. (Some science purists insist on prospective testing of predictions to say a theory is proved. Deniers made their last best case that the evidence still wasn't conclusive before specific gene manipulation began. It's the same case they make today and the one I say is based on 30-40 year old evidence.)

• in the 80s-90s when genomes were revealed and the interrelationships between species was unmistakable and undeniable

• or, only when the theory of evolution is completed by adding the evidence for the mechanism(s) of abiogenesis (the extreme science purists' position ).

The second issue is what constitutes 'scientific consensus'?

If there was a consensus 40 years ago, it sure is exhausting arguing to this day with all the people who even now continue to insist we haven't 'proved' the theory of evolution. We both agree today those evolution deniers are on the fringe in the scientific community.

We both agree evolution deniers were not on the fringe in the scientific community in Darwin's day.

Somewhere in between, Biblical evidence for the origin of species lost favor in the scientific community and a scientific consensus emerged that the theory of evolution was correct. Scientific consensus is again dependent upon who you include and where you draw the cutoff defining 'consensus'.

I think here is another critical place we speak of apples and oranges*, and perhaps disagree on the degree of religious indoctrination among mainstream scientists, and on how much influence that indoctrination has had. Just so there is no confusion here, indoctrination does not mean extremest or fundie. There are all degrees of indoctrination.

Indoctrinated scientists would have a higher threshold for defining 'overwhelming evidence'. And I would include the bulk of indoctrinated scientists in my definition of 'consensus'.


So, in summary:

If you don't consider it a scientific argument, 'evolution has not been proved', then there is no "science of the 60s-70s" by which evolution deniers can argue. We don't disagree. I consider 'not proved' a 'state of the science', defining proof is discussed below.

If you are saying evolution theory was proved by the 60s-70s, for one not resistant to the theory, I agree. But if you listen to evolution deniers' arguments today, they cite the 'missing proof' as their scientific argument. Deniers are resistant to evolution theory and include resistant scientists.

Evolution deniers have more recently tried to add to the arguments of improbability and irreducible complexity. They use bad science which has not been accepted by the scientific community except for a fringe group of scientists, so I have not included those arguments in assessing 'overwhelming evidence' and 'consensus'.

The main argument given by evolution deniers is the claim, "evolution theory has not been 'proved'". The claims evolution deniers make are the same claims they made 70 years ago. Those claims ignore the irrefutable genome evidence of the last decade. Those claims deny the evidence of 40 years ago and they deny the evidence of 70 years ago.

At some point in the past you agree there were enough 'gaps' in evolution theory to make the claim, "the theory had not been 'proved'". Don't you think it is in the eye of the beholder when that changed? And when it changed in the eye of the beholder is dependent upon accumulating evidence, not necessarily when the last arguments against evolution were dispelled.

That leaves us having to agree to disagree about when those indoctrinated scientists that remain reasonably mainstream joined the 'consensus' and agreed the evidence met the threshold of 'overwhelming'. Either that or we disagree when their numbers diminished to the point they no longer affected the 'consensus'.


I offer you the last word, if you want. I'll do my best to resist comment unless it is regarding some other aspect in the thread.
-


*I feel the need to point out apples and oranges aren't really that different so we may be using an erroneous analogy.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I know I invited scrutiny of my educational background when I mentioned my degree in my OP. My intention was to indicate that I had some understanding of how science works through the scientific method and thus was not some uneducated fool asking questions with out a basic knowledge of the things about which I was asking. I know that some of the things I said in my OP implies that I was deliberately obfuscating and trying to get a creationist word in edgewise without declaring myself a creationist, but I am frankly getting tired of apologizing for it as I have offered such an apology at least five times. I think some of the scrutiny that my education has received has verged on a subtle ad hominem attack in that I have some sort of woo-woo degree in a seriously scientific field and therefore that makes my honesty in asking the questions in my OP is suspect. This seems to suggest that some posters who have responded are not interested in answering my questions or even explaining evolution in general, but rather insulting perceived creationist arguments. The above is only in reference to the posters who have explicit questioned my integrity in their posts even if they did provide substantive proof of evolution because my education. Whether I received insufficient training to understand the science of evolution is irrelevant to the questions that I was asking, because, regardless of what my education was or should have been, I still did not understand, at least initially, how fossils confirmed evolution. Now, as I have mentioned before, I do understand that my question was ill-conceived and ill-posed because I lacked an intuitive perception of evolutionary time, which I developed during the conversation.

 

[articulett]

At the Dover trial, it came out that Behe helped write "Of Pandas and People" in the 1980s. The organization responsible for that book are pure creationists. The book referred to "creation" till the Supreme Court threw that out of schools, then they did a "find and replace" to change the term to "ID." Ten years ago, I thought Behe was just to clever for himself (i.e., deluded). Since then, I have come to believe Behe's "I am only following science" routine is a sham.

Yep...he pretty much avoids or gives lip service to that which he can't deny so that he maintains some "scientific credibility", and then milks his irreducible complexity theory for all it's worth while refusing to acknowledge the amassing refutations that show that irreducible complexity is neither.

It reminds me of the Pope's statement today: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1609537,00.html

Francis Collins is similar. And they are evolutionists...but they are also creationists. They believe god guides parts and they discourage science from explorations into certain areas and they believe in souls and that evolution can't explain morality and so forth. But that is still creationism to me. They don't want to know more...they don't want science to explain certain things, and they refuse to compute answers that do explain whatever issues they have. Non creationists tend to have an amazing curiosity for each new bit of info. we get while creationists tend to ignore it...pretend it doesn't exist...not know about it...be unaware of refutations of whatever their "key" evolution conundrum is-- they'll show their understanding or scientific credentials to engage you and so they'll have some credibility when they bring up their "issue" with evolution--but they all have an issue...and they keep that issue active to keep their "faith" alive...they "can't" let it be solved.

I find that dishonest. Because what they present as an eagerness to "understand" is always just a ruse to obfuscate the discoveries of science. They want to keep science from explaining things that they've explained by "god". Sure, they're nothing like young earth creationists. But they tend to be people who get status from others by speaking for "god". I mean, what would Behe be without ID? Just a bad biologist. Who would worship the pope? How would Francis Collins get his government funding? And a public ear? I don't dislike them. But I don't like doing research for people who have no interest in actual answers either. I'm getting more like Dawkins in that way. They're a million times better than young earth creationists--but faith and science are not equal ways to know things. And I don't care what people believe; I care about what is true. And even though they may deny it...all the above examples are creationists to me. If you have a need to believe that humans can't explain it and god (or an "intelligent designer") can--you are a creationist in my book...even if you also believe in evolution.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't get too cynical, mijo. There are many people on the board. We're all different. Give people time. They make mistakes sizing people up. If after time goes by you still think they are rude, the ignore feature is actually quite useful.

In the meantime, I think there was silly suspicions, not that you didn't have a science background, but that your degree sounded fishy. They could have just checked the web before

I wouldn't make too much of it.

 

[articulett]

If you recognize the criteria you are using and the criteria I am using differ, you might see we don't disagree on the facts as you seem to think. Rather we are looking at the problem from different perspectives.

Yes, I think it's been pointed out several times that you both agree. And I don't think there are a lot of scientists changing their minds. I just think the creationists are retiring, dying out, and not getting published in peer reviewed journals (for obvious reasons.) Just like I don't think Copernicus nor Galileo causes any scientific "consensus" in their time...although all would agree there is a consensus now--but I can't imagine what would be the "moment" that it reached "consensus" status. Nevertheless... when something is true... it stays true... even before scientists or anyone else reaches a consensus on it. Consensus seems to come in baby steps with time and with promoters of older faith based dogmas dying out. It is a continuum that evolves...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Say, the edit feature is off. That's what someone was talking about in another post. I didn't get what they meant. Wow, and as I typed this, it popped on.

Weird, guess I'll go read board announcements.

 

[articulett]

I know I invited scrutiny of my educational background when I mentioned my degree in my OP. My intention was to indicate that I had some understanding of how science works through the scientific method and thus was not some uneducated fool asking questions with out a basic knowledge of the things about which I was asking. I know that some of the things I said in my OP implies that I was deliberately obfuscating and trying to get a creationist word in edgewise without declaring myself a creationist, but I am frankly getting tired of apologizing for it as I have offered such an apology at least five times. I think some of the scrutiny that my education has received has verged on a subtle ad hominem attack in that I have some sort of woo-woo degree in a seriously scientific field and therefore that makes my honesty in asking the questions in my OP is suspect. This seems to suggest that some posters who have responded are not interested in answering my questions or even explaining evolution in general, but rather insulting perceived creationist arguments. The above is only in reference to the posters who have explicit questioned my integrity in their posts even if they did provide substantive proof of evolution because my education. Whether I received insufficient training to understand the science of evolution is irrelevant to the questions that I was asking, because, regardless of what my education was or should have been, I still did not understand, at least initially, how fossils confirmed evolution. Now, as I have mentioned before, I do understand that my question was ill-conceived and ill-posed because I lacked an intuitive perception of evolutionary time, which I developed during the conversation.

Well, are you a supporter of "intelligent design"? Perhaps you have a different opinion of a creationist than I do. Supporters of "intelligent design" avoid the label creationist because of it's faith implications...and yet, they are creationists... they believe that an "intelligent designer" is an explanation and that unintelligent (bottom up...without a plan design) is unlikely or impossible. Should someone ask a question with that belief, then often, their desire is not to understand the answer, but to assure themselves that humans can't explain it. It was your dismissal of good answers and your lack of curiosity that brought me to my conclusions...I felt like you had insulted people who had gone out of their way to defend you and educate you and answer your "ill conceived" question. Also, it has been suggested that the candle analogy has been used by promoters of "intelligent design". Is that an example you came up with yourself; or did you hear the argument before--perhaps from a proponent of "intelligent design"? And surely you can understand the reaction when it is well known that proponents of intelligent design use science education and some knowledge of science to actually obfuscate--like Behe. Certainly you can see how you might have been perceived as being similar to him. Did you read the link people I gave you to the Dover trial or about the wedge strategy. Their whole game is to try to be scientific and avoid all mention of religion or "creation" while muddying peoples understanding and acceptance of evolution so that they (as spokespeople for god) can be seen as "authoritative" and worthy of funding, allegiance and ego-gratifying respect as the prop up their favorite delusion.

If you compare your postings with other evolution obfuscators versus evolution educators, I think you'd see why I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you had goals other than answering the question you asked. Read Behe--or on this forum, VonNeumann, Kleinman, and Hewitt and see if some of your statements don't sound similar. They all deny being "creationists" too. They all seem to accept or at least not take issue with some of the more salient aspects of evolution--but they all have varying arguments as to why there must be some sort of intelligence evolved. All arguments that have been repeatedly refuted...and never to their satisfaction. All are educated and seemingly intelligent enough to understand what others are saying, and yet they don't "register" it...there is never any recognition. In fact, I am sure that like you did they would state that absolutely no-one has solved their particular conundrum. If that makes you angry and defensive, then I suspect it's because you were found out.

Otherwise, I would imagine, that you would be able to understand why there was confusion and be eager to clear it up--you would presumably understand how deceptive evolution obfuscators could be because your original post indicated that you were trying to explain stuff to them--the truth is, you can't. You can't fix faith based assumptions with fact based evidence...at least not when someone believes their salvation is at stake. If they ask you a question, you'd be best off asking them if they REALLY are interested in the answer. Science isn't "easy"...and an actual answer might take some time and education--plus it takes an actual willingness on the person asking the question. If you are familiar with creationist as your OP states--then you are familiar with questions that aren't really questions at all--but faith boosting assertions that bespeak of arrogance and ignorance.

I don't think anyone here holds grudges. It's just our experience that creationists never really cede a point no matter how much effort you expend in trying to answer their queries. Read through the annoying creationist thread if you can stomach it for stellar examples.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, I think it's been pointed out several times that you both agree. And I don't think there are a lot of scientists changing their minds. I just think the creationists are retiring, dying out, and not getting published in peer reviewed journals (for obvious reasons.) Just like I don't think Copernicus nor Galileo causes any scientific "consensus" in their time...although all would agree there is a consensus now--but I can't imagine what would be the "moment" that it reached "consensus" status. Nevertheless... when something is true... it stays true... even before scientists or anyone else reaches a consensus on it. Consensus seems to come in baby steps with time and with promoters of older faith based dogmas dying out. It is a continuum that evolves...

When I first started posting in skeptic forums, it was on the Bad Astronomy forum (before it was combined with the Universe Today forum, BAUT). When I said evolution had been essentially proved, people including skeptics, jumped all over me. I posted pages defending evolution and included some of the more recent genetic research. Many people, including skeptics, were amazed such research existed. There was one person, (maybe I shouldn't name her even though the posts were public), very religious, going to a religious university, who would come back over and over with arguments some 'professor' had explained to her in a class. The very carefully laid out arguments were the usual, speciation had not been proved, there was this issue and that issue still open to debate and so on.

She was a skeptic in other areas of science. She wasn't one of these proselytizers who frequent the boards who don't accept evidence of any kind. I think I almost had her convinced. But she was really struggling with her faith. And changing her belief about evolution after investing in it as an important component of her belief was really hard for her.

And of course it didn't help that I posted my usual arguments about the lack of evidence for a god that interacts with the Universe in other threads. There was a core membership and we knew each other fairly well. But we were friends on that board and my atheism and her theism were not sources of conflict.

I just can't tell you though the struggle she seemed to be going through having her beliefs so severely challenged by the evidence for evolution. Since we see so few people who are actually on the verge of confronting the evidence which challenges something they are so invested in, I don't know that we often think about that emotional barrier to critical thinking. Most theists we encounter in the skeptic forums never change their beliefs, regardless of the evidence. And if any woo believers decided to actually consider the evidence, it wouldn't create the same crisis of faith.

The evidence is what it is. It does seem like a last gasp for theists to be trying so hard to create a facade of science around their Biblical myths. And yet, very few of them have the same conflict of faith with other Creation myths from the Bible.

Genesis
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
...

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. "He made the stars also."
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Does any of that even make sense? First one light was created then another 2 lights are made in the heavens to rule day and night. The Moon doesn't rule the night, you can see it in the daytime every month. And it isn't a light, it reflects light. And the Sun and stars aren't in heaven. That implies the archaic view that there is a dome over the Earth.

It is rather curious why evolution carries such a different meaning. My hypothesis is to some believers, we aren't "special" if we evolved instead of being "made in God's image". The science which dispels the Creation myths which don't have the same impact on our "specialness" are now acceptable. In the time of Bruno and Galileo, those Creation myths were tied to the church's authority. If the priests had the interpretation of the Bible wrong, they were no longer "special".

I think it's worth pointing out to people sometimes, there are many things in the Biblical Creation story which are accepted as myths. So what's different about evolution?

 

[articulett]

I think it's worth pointing out to people sometimes, there are many things in the Biblical Creation story which are accepted as myths. So what's different about evolution?

I've thought about this a lot--and I was raised Catholic...but as soon as I heard about evolution, it made complete sense to me--in a way religion never did.

And here's the conundrum. We feel separate from our bodies...special...meant to be. We know we are going to die. And the major religions tell us that we can suffer eternally if we don't believe the right thing. And then they magically give us the belief we are supposed to have. And we accept it... because we want to live forever... and we are told we are part of the "saved"... and that we will live happily ever after... and that we aren't meant to understand....

Christianity is based on God "sacrificing" his son (who was really him). And why did he have to do this--because of "original sin". Well, if evolution is true, then that make the whole garden of Eden thing a parable (not to mention the talking snake)--and who has someone killed for a "parable"--was the the Jesus story just a parable too? Understanding evolution opens the doors to the crumbling of the stories that we've been told are necessary for salvation...for morality...for good-- it can, and often does lead to atheism. If nothing else, you've got to ask, why an all loving god forgot to mention it. He could have at least mentioned microbes--germ theory--DNA--that the male determines the sex of a child so quit punishing women for not having sons...etc.

Science makes sense in a way that religion never could. It only makes sense if you can refrain from "biting from the tree of knowledge". So religion doesn't worry too much about the age of the earth because to most people 10,000 years ago is the same as 10 billion years ago--it's just "a long time ago". But evolution means that people really aren't so special...that the universe wasn't created to bring forth them...moreover, if you've been told that faith is a gift that scientists or demons or bad people will try to take away from you, then you wrap it around you like a cloak--you are suspicious of people claiming to know what you were told only god can know...and if you have come to need your belief to feel good or safe or moral or special or purposeful or "chosen" or saved--then letting go of it is like letting go of an addiction--it's scary. If you've taught yourself to make sense of it and see it as true, then you've bought into the idea that faith or "inner knowingness" is a good way to understand "higher truths".

I understand the problems people have with evolution. And so I'm always eager to find people I can discuss the latest findings with when I don't see the "alarm bell" reaction in their eyes. I could never get religion to make sense, and so there was only the briefest feeling of loss in "letting go of God" before an onslaught of excitement at the freedom to learn all I could. Frankly, I felt relief at not having to worry about some afterlife that could involve suffering (without a brain?!) that I didn't know the rubric for following and I didn't know how you proved you believed something nor how you made yourself believe it.

I understand. So I don't try to change minds. But I don't show deference or respect for beliefs either...especially not to people who don't even ask me what I believe or who make assumptions that I believe as they do. I am often subject to opinions stated as fact that I know people cannot back up, and yet I'm always willing to support my claims with evidence or look at evidence that I am mistaken. And I speak of evolution the way I speak of gravity or atoms--as a fact. Because it is. And I know the evidence. Not all of it--but enough to understand what a compelling and exciting fact evolution is. And I do want everyone to have the opportunity to know it too. I am peeved at how religion as muddled peoples curiosity on these very intriguing topic. People are afraid to "bite from the tree of knowledge". Evolution defies original sin. And biting from the tree of knowledge is delicious--once you get over the fear, you indulge frequently.

If original sin is a parable--then Christianity's foundation crumbles. I don't know how Francis Collins maintains his belief--For me, the more I understood the facts, the more anemic "inspired" texts looked. Science trumps faith when it comes to understanding, and theists sense that. I think it's best to aim to teach the young and curious and let the faithful crowd spin their fairytale as they please. I tell my students that faith is about facts that can't be proven and science is about the facts that are the same for everybody--like math. It's a tool. Gravity is the same no matter where you live and experiments work the same no matter what language you speak. When some group translates a genome--it's readily read and understood by all who understand the code--just like higher math. I avoid religion completely.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

D'oh! Of course, what was I thinking, or rather not thinking. The whole original sin, the major premise of Christianity is part of the Creation myth. The Sun, Moon, Earth,... vary that part of the story and you can still maintain your belief system. But chip away at the Adam and Eve story and it isn't so easy to brush off the implausibility of it as a parable. Not with the "Jesus died for me" part of the story which is definitely seen by Christians as a literal account.

 

[Schneibster]

Hmmm....

Sunday school is child abuse?

 

[Dancing David]

He might have just been curious, but no matter, I think it was fair to ask. I don't think of calling every one with PhDs, doctor either though. It depends on how one is introduced I guess.

I agree but i think that not calling someone a Dr. is not disrespectful.

It is a fair question i guess, just the people whoi demand to be be called doctor are bafoons, that is what i was reacting to.

 

[Dancing David]

I never meant to insult anyone, but given the aforementioned "Dembski"/"Dumbski" trope, which I found exceedingly clever and funny, I thought that it wouldn't hurt to ask.

David, I totally understand what you are talking about; most of my professors had me call them by their first names. They said something akin to "I went to graduate school for the knowledge not for the honorific". I was intrigued by this lack of pretension and enjoyed it very much. It made them seem a lot more accessible.

Cool


I was reacting to something else. i apologise.