U.S. population lags in accepting evolution

[Rodney]

Nope. Alfred Wegener was still right (and his opponents still wrong), even when he was the only person who believed that continents moved.

You're misreading my post. I didn't say that the 4 billion would be right, only that their views would be relevant.

Science is not a democracy.

For once, we agree. Which is why you should not argue that, because a majority of scientists oppose something, that proves it is wrong.

 

[hgc]

...
(2) ID is not necessarily opposed to evolution, only to contemporary Darwinian Theory.
...

What is "contemporary Darwinian Theory?" What other kind of evolution is there? Please be specific.

 

[drkitten]

For once, we agree. Which is why you should not argue that, because a majority of scientists oppose something, that proves it is wrong.

I don't believe I have. I've argued that because there is no evidence for Intelligent Design (or indeed, for any theory substantially different than the modern theory of evolution), and becuse there is ample evidence against it, and because the supporters of ID are well-aware of this, and are almost without exception liars, plagiarists, perjurers, and other types of scoundrels, because if they told the truth about ID, they would be unable to muster any support at all--- that proves ID is wrong

 

[Hellbound]

I don't believe I have. I've argued that because there is no evidence for Intelligent Design (or indeed, for any theory substantially different than the modern theory of evolution), and becuse there is ample evidence against it, and because the supporters of ID are well-aware of this, and are almost without exception liars, plagiarists, perjurers, and other types of scoundrels, because if they told the truth about ID, they would be unable to muster any support at all--- that proves ID is wrong

Don't hold back, drkitten, tell us how you really feel

You also forgot "that can't explain their theory without mentioning evolution"

 

[Meffy]

I find it astonishing that anyone could genuinely believe it right to reserve the boon of scientific thought to an intellectual elite, not allowing such difficult concerns to weigh upon the (doubtless air-filled, right?) little heads of hairdressers and the like. Not only is this an appalling variety of casteism -- so much so I'm strongly tempted to view expressions of support for it as mere trolling, but will try to treat them as serious -- it supposes that it's somehow desirable to be one of a select few living among ignorant masses. Doesn't seem desirable to me. Sounds downright nightmarishly dystopic.

To those who think this kind of setup would be appropriate, how many hairdressers do you know personally, deeply enough to evaluate their intelligence, their interests, their capacities for growth, their aspirations? How many car mechanics? Janitors? Truck drivers? Short-order cooks? Sales clerks? Think they're all dumb bunnies who should be treated as inferiors, functionaries, deltas and epsilons? If so, I think you don't know many people... or don't know them as well as you suppose you do.

While we're at it, would it be right to insist that scientists not be trained in non-scientific pursuits? I mean, why waste the solid utility of a fine chemist like, say, Borodin on trivial nonsense like composing music? Ineffective use of resources, isn't it? Shall we deny the benefits of scientific thought to a lowly patent office assitant -- that Albert what's-his-name, for instance? There are plenty more examples of brilliance emerging from unexpected characters.

I am firmly behind teaching critical thought, science, and a wide variety of subjects to EVERYONE. I don't want to be awash in a sea of ignorance, however appealing that might be to a few posters in this thread. The very idea of limiting knowledge to those who (in a given poster's unqualified estimation) will make the best use of it is beyond offensive, it's downright disgusting. IMO.

 

[drkitten]

I am firmly behind teaching critical thought, science, and a wide variety of subjects to EVERYONE. I don't want to be awash in a sea of ignorance, however appealing that might be to a few posters in this thread.

On the other hand, I'm also very firmly behind not trying to teach pigs to sing.

Part of the problem is the way that this whole question has been framed, as it excludes a rather large middle ground. In a democracy like the UK (and especially the USA, where religion plays such a role in shaping scientific and public policy), people are expected to have well-founded opinions on scientific matters such as stem cell research, public school curricula, the future of manned space flight, and so forth. However, there's little incentive/reward for them to actually do so. My vote (or my letter to my Congressman/MP) counts for exactly as much regardless of whether I'm a Ph.D-equipped evolutionary biologist or a fish-and-chippie.

Basically, the uneducated have neither the incentive and in many cases not even the ability to distance themselves from science.

I don't bother to change my own oil. There's a man down the street who will do it for me every few months, for a price I barely notice. I usually don't even transport myself long distances -- there's an airline pilot who will do that for me, too. I don't have to snake out my own toilets, paint my own walls, compound my own medicines. They're too much work.

But the plumber can't let me, a trained and professional scientist, handle his science for him?

The problem isn't one of not letting people do science. It's one of not letting people NOT do science. And when people who don't want to do science are forced to do it anyway, they do it very badly indeed.....

 

[Meffy]

What I'm in favor of is 1) making learning accessible to everyone who wants it, and 2) doing our best as a society to make people want to access that learning. IOW, lead the horses to water and make it as tasty and clean as possible. Enough will drink, I think. :-}

[edit] BTW, I wasn't including you in the group whose ideas strike me as so appalling.

 

[Meffy]

On the radio a couple days ago a commentator brought up an interesting point about the origin of public education in the USA -- that under theocracy, old-school monarchy, and other authoritarian governments there's no need for the masses to be educated; ignorant masses do just fine for such repressive regimes. They cause less trouble. =9_9=

But when the "Founding Fathers" died off it became more apparent that if a democracy is to survive and prosper, more than a thin veneer of educated elite is needed. Without an educated electorate not only are elections easily transformed into awful travesties, but there's an insufficient pool of intelligent, thoughtful people from whom the next generation of intellectual and opinion leaders can emerge.

 

[drkitten]

What I'm in favor of is 1) making learning accessible to everyone who wants it, and 2) doing our best as a society to make people want to access that learning. IOW, lead the horses to water and make it as tasty and clean as possible.

So what are you going to do about the people who still don't want to drink?

And what are you going to do about the folks like Rodney that not only don't want to drink, but that want to pollute the water to prevent other people from drinking?

 

[Meffy]

About those who don't want to drink I can do little except to tempt them -- even trick them -- into learning, using entertainment to open the door and then hitting them with facts, reasoning techniques, good examples, whatever it takes.

About those like Rodney all I can do is to try to point out where the polluted areas are, and do my best (little as that is) to counteract the poison by presenting the other side. By myself that would be futile. With others more knowledgeable than I, it's a battle that can, I think, often be won.

 

[Rodney]

What is "contemporary Darwinian Theory?" What other kind of evolution is there? Please be specific.

Contemporary Darwinian Theory holds that, not only has evolution occurred, it has occurred solely due to random mutations and natural selection. The "Dissent from Darwin" statement signed by more than 600 scientists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." So, some signers of that statement may believe that evolution has occurred, but not due solely to random mutations and natural selection, with the emphasis likely being on the former.

 

[drkitten]

On the radio a couple days ago a commentator brought up an interesting point about the origin of public education in the USA -- that under theocracy, old-school monarchy, and other authoritarian governments there's no need for the masses to be educated; ignorant masses do just fine for such repressive regimes. They cause less trouble. =9_9=

But when the "Founding Fathers" died off it became more apparent that if a democracy is to survive and prosper, more than a thin veneer of educated elite is needed. Without an educated electorate not only are elections easily transformed into awful travesties, but there's an insufficient pool of intelligent, thoughtful people from whom the next generation of intellectual and opinion leaders can emerge.

I'm not sure of the historical accuracy of that analysis (only because rule 8 probably prohibits me from using phrases like "load of tosh.")

First, the tradition and origin of American public education dates from well-before the "Founding Fathers." But even then, "public education" has almost never been thought of as "mass education" until the 20th century.

Second, the political system as designed by the "Founding Fathers" was specifically designed to be run by an educated elite. Congressmen were elected by popular vote, as were state officials of various sorts, and as were "electors" for the Presidency. Senators, in turn, were elected by the votes of the state officials, and the President was elected by the electors. Judges, of course, were appointed by the President in consultation with the Senate. The whole point of this multilevel approach was to create a "pool of intelligent, thoughtful people from whom the next generation of intellectual and opinion leaders can emerge." The idea was not that I elected someone who shared my opinion on the issues of the minute, but that I elected someone whose judgement I trusted (even if I didn't understand it fully) so that he would be in place to solve the issues of the next minute.

That's still how informal organizations usually run -- for example, at my university, I "vote" for my representative to the University Senate, but the person for whom I vote is typically a colleague whose judgement I trust, precisely so that I don't need to be aware of the minutia of the day-to-day running of the school. I similarly vote on a representative to the promotion/tenure committee so that I don't have to look at all the applications myself. By electing the smartest, most honest, and most honorable member of the department -- and fortunately, I know who he is and I wish he wasn't stepping down this year -- I can concentrate on other stuff.

We've even, by pure happenstance, got someone in the department who has a degree in ethics in addition to his field specialization degree. Who do you think we're going to elect to the Judicial Committee? Not because he will make a decision that agrees with ours, but because he'll make the right decision. Because we trust him, his knowledge, and his judgment.

 

[Meffy]

Public education in the sense I mean it (as universal as possible) didn't really get under way in the USA until the 19th century. And it took a while after that before it really "took." (In fact, during my lifetime, just a few miles from where I live, the county government shut down the entire public school system for years rather than admit a class of people the majority considered inferior and not needing education.) Anyway, I summarized what the commentator said, probably poorly, from a faulty memory. No doubt a transcript would be less flawed than my recollection. *shrug* I thought it was of interest and relevant to the topic.

Though I agree with much of what you said I disagree with other parts. I can't argue point by point against you; I can't even type fast enough to keep up. I've said what I believe and why. That will have to do. I think any disagreements we have are probably in detail rather than overview. If not, too bad. [edit: as in "I can live with that."]

 

[Roboramma]

Contemporary Darwinian Theory holds that, not only has evolution occurred, it has occurred solely due to random mutations and natural selection. The "Dissent from Darwin" statement signed by more than 600 scientists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." So, some signers of that statement may believe that evolution has occurred, but not due solely to random mutations and natural selection, with the emphasis likely being on the former.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a competent biologist that thinks that random mutation and natural selection completely account for evolution on their own. Most, for instance, will admit that genetic drift has a role to play as well (however minor), yet this is distinct from natural selection, and more complex than simple random mutation.

This "Comtemporary Darwinian Theory" that you are proposing seems to be a straw man of your own construction.

 

[Meffy]

I don't think Rodney deserves credit for the construction, just picking it up and playing marionette. I've seen the same straw used by plenty of others who preferred to attack a misconception instead of authentic current theory.

 

[Rodney]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a competent biologist that thinks that random mutation and natural selection completely account for evolution on their own. Most, for instance, will admit that genetic drift has a role to play as well (however minor), yet this is distinct from natural selection, and more complex than simple random mutation.

This "Comtemporary Darwinian Theory" that you are proposing seems to be a straw man of your own construction.

Then please educate me and explain what components must be added to random mutation and natural selection to complete the theory to which most "competent biologists" subscribe.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Then please educate me and explain what components must be added to random mutation and natural selection to complete the theory to which most "competent biologists" subscribe.

Are you actually interested in learning science, or just bashing it? There are many other factors that go into evolution, environmental stress is one.

 

[Meffy]

Take a walk on the wild side, Rodney. Read some Stephen Jay Gould. His ideas aren't universally accepted but they'll show you that -- who'da thunk it? -- evolution science evolves.

[edit] Darned entertaining to read too.

 

[Roboramma]

Then please educate me and explain what components must be added to random mutation and natural selection to complete the theory to which most "competent biologists" subscribe.

Well, here's the problem with that: I'm not an expert on evolutionary biology. I can't pretend to be able to explain (let alone explain well) every aspect of a science that I am in many ways ignorant of.

But a complete knowledge of evolutionary theory isn't required to realise that it encompasses more than just random mutation plus natural selection.

Let's look at speciation, for instance. In order for speciation to occur some sort of separation has to occur between distinct populations within a species. One form of separation is geographic (say a river or mountian range). This allows those two populations to build up genetic changes to the point that when they do come into contact again they are unable to interbreed, and can be classified as separate species.
So, what's the point of this? Well, that process of speciation certainly relies on random mutation + natural selection, but if we didn't bring in the geographic separation (or some other form) there wouldn't be a chance for speciation to occur.
And speciation is an important aspect of evolution.

I already mentioned genetic drift as another important aspect of evolution that isn't just random mutation and natural selection. Maybe there are others, I don't know.

But clearly the theory of evolution as it stands, after 150 years of science since Darwin, is not as simple than you make it out to be.

 

[Rodney]

Well, here's the problem with that: I'm not an expert on evolutionary biology.

On the other hand, Richard von Sternberg is.

I can't pretend to be able to explain (let alone explain well) every aspect of a science that I am in many ways ignorant of.

For a skeptic, you seem willing to take a lot on faith.

But a complete knowledge of evolutionary theory isn't required to realise that it encompasses more than just random mutation plus natural selection.

Let's look at speciation, for instance. In order for speciation to occur some sort of separation has to occur between distinct populations within a species. One form of separation is geographic (say a river or mountian range). This allows those two populations to build up genetic changes to the point that when they do come into contact again they are unable to interbreed, and can be classified as separate species.
So, what's the point of this? Well, that process of speciation certainly relies on random mutation + natural selection, but if we didn't bring in the geographic separation (or some other form) there wouldn't be a chance for speciation to occur.
And speciation is an important aspect of evolution.

I already mentioned genetic drift as another important aspect of evolution that isn't just random mutation and natural selection. Maybe there are others, I don't know.

But clearly the theory of evolution as it stands, after 150 years of science since Darwin, is not as simple than you make it out to be.

It's not so much what I make it out to be -- it's what the 600+ scientists who signed the "Dissent from Darwin" statement make it out to be. But I think you'll find the major focus of the dissenters is on the vast numbers of random mutations that have supposedly taken place over the millenia to bring life to its present level of complexity.