What regular people think "evolution" is

[Earthborn]

I especially liked when Haggard criticises evolution because it says that an eye "just formed somehow". He obviously has no understanding of evolution, as Dawkins pointed out.

Actually, Haggard says that evolution has formed the eye "by accident". Dawkins claims that no evolutionist he knows has ever claimed that things form "by accident". Unless Dawkins has never met Stephen Jay Gould he says an obvious untruth. Stephen Jay Gould has described the evolution of life as "A Glorious Accident".

So there are evolutionists who believe that things form "by accident". It is just that the word "accident" has a few distinct meanings. Haggard probably understands it as "a single catastrophic event" and he is right to consider that as absurd. Stephen Jay Gould probably meant it as "a series of events not planned in advance" which is harder to refute, but also shows Gould's non-theist preconceptions.

I mean, Dawkins just Godwin's it with the first question. The clip that we saw of the event is nothing like a Nuremberg rally.

Luckily Haggard doesn't seem to know what a Nuremberg rally is, or he would have thrown Dawkins out, I think.

Dawkins is just being provocative, and he doesn't need to be. Once he gets down to discussing brass tacks, he's lucid, persuasive and leaves Pastor Ted blustering and floundering.

I disagree. Haggard says that when he talks about "loving your neighbour as yourself" he doesn't have to back it up with evidence, and Dawkins doesn't listen to what he said and just questions the Bible as evidence. I don't think that is very smart, unless Dawkins wants to argue it needs to be proven scientifically that it is a good thing to care for others.

The only thing that can be learned from this is that Dawkins has a disdain for religious belief which he calls "irrational thinking" and "searching for childish certainties" and "bronze age myths". I don't think he has come closer to understanding it, which is what he claims he was there for. I think it is pretty obvious that Dawkins does have an air of "intellectual superiority" over him -- something that is perhaps appropriate when he discusses biology, but not when he discusses religion -- and I think Haggard is right to call him up on that.

It is obvious that Haggard does not know anything about the theory of evolution, but Dawkins makes the mistake of confusing scientific issues with religious beliefs and Haggard seems to have a better understanding of religion than Dawkins does.

 

[Rustle]

Wow. That's the most hypocritical speech on arrogance I think I've ever heard.

I've heard at least 2 interviewers ask Dawkins about this exchange and "arrogance". To boil it down, Dawkins says, "look, this is my area. Ted Haggard was trying to disagree with me about evolution and natural selection, and that is really the one area that I own intellectually."

This page has the Point of Inquiry podcast with Dawkins:
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/index.php?paged=2

DJ Grothe asks him specifically about the show, about the exchange, and about arrogance.

 

[Angus McPresley]

My mom, a former Biology teacher, hated the "Pokemon" craze, until she realized that the various creatures "evolve" into their higher stages. She thought "hey, anything to get the word "evolve" into their vocabularies."

Makes me wonder how many teachers originally allowed Pokemons until they learned they involved "evolution", then banned them.

 

[Art Vandelay]

(my A level's kicked arse last year on biology papers dealing with genetics and evolution).

How did they do on grammar?

It's pointed out to him many times as the thread progresses. Multiple posts include fits to curves that, although not linear, are a hell of a lot slower than 4^x.

~~ Paul

How could he possibly claim 4^x? It's like that joke about the phycisist evaluating the claim that all odd numbers are prime. "Three is prime, five is prime, seven is prime, nine is experimental error..." The fact that the actual values have absolutely no relation to the "expected" values does not faze him?

I guess this was the origin of that thread about curve fitting? I noticed that Excel has a built-in exponential curve fitting function.

Actually, Haggard says that evolution has formed the eye "by accident". Dawkins claims that no evolutionist he knows has ever claimed that things form "by accident". Unless Dawkins has never met Stephen Jay Gould he says an obvious untruth. Stephen Jay Gould has described the evolution of life as "A Glorious Accident".

Life. Not, specifically, eyes.

So there are evolutionists who believe that things form "by accident". It is just that the word "accident" has a few distinct meanings.

There's also a difference between an accident, and by accident.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Lets not forget that it is the evolution theory; it has not been proven, yet. Science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past. Don’t be so cocksure of yourself.

Theories are never proven. They are disproven by experiments or other efforts, but never proven. They are always subject to revision or fine tuneing. Newton's 17th century equations sufficed to get us to the Moon and back. But Einstein got it better. And people tested the ***** out of relativity, including checking if light was really bent by the sun's gravity well. Not to mention Trinity.
The theory that evolution is a gradual, incremental process has been challenged. Those little horses growing into larger horses that we and Philip Jay Gould saw at the Natural History Museum were phonied (ponyed?) up.
But evolutionary theory drives the workhorse of biological science and spills over into related areas, sometimes with overenthusiastic generalizations. Sociobiology, for example.

 

[RandFan]

Regular folk don't know much and don't think much. They believe what they've been told, and they believe it all means what they've been told it means.

We are ever so much better than they are. They deserve our contempt. I'm sure glad I'm not one of those. Wouldn't it be great if we could somehow separate ourselves from them? We should start a club. We need a name. Something that says we are ever so much better than average folks. Oh, and spiffy uniforms. I want a spiffy uniform. And I think we all need a gold star in the middle of our forehead. This would designate our uniqueness. We are not regular folk, uh-uh, no sir. We have seen the enemy and it is definitely them.

 

[davefoc]

I wouldn't have said what CD said. It seems a little self serving . But I don't think I'd be so quick to judge it wrong either.

For better and worse, skeptics think that trying to figure out what the truth is important even if the likely outcome is that the truth we find might make us unomfortable.

Most people are rational enough to come to a balance that allows for some world views based on little more than they are a source of comfort and some world views that are based on cold reasoning when the situation calls for it. Skeptics tend to have the idea that it is important that all our beliefs be based solely on the issue of whether something is true or not.

So the regular person spends a few hours every now and then going to church and feeling good about the idea of a benevolent god and doesn't think too hard about all the improbablities assoicated with what is being told to him. But on the other hand, when it comes to his weekly card game he is analytical enough to not be drawing to inside straights in the wrong situations. So he's found a kind of balance that makes him happy and doesn't impact his ability to prosper very much. Of course if the guy pops into his local chiropractor for a quick adjustment and ends up with a stroke because of damage to his carotid artery we can say that he might have been better off if he had been a little more skeptical.

 

[RandFan]

I wouldn't have said what CD said. It seems a little self serving . But I don't think I'd be so quick to judge it wrong either.

I see no purpose in segregating us from them. I see no reason to have contempt for "regular folk", hell, I am "regular folk". I may be an atheist but I do not see myself as seperate from anyone else in the human race. Regular folk are not the enemy. Ignorance is. And I would say that arrogance and contempt are not far behind. I think Pogo was right.

 

[davefoc]

CD's post might be taken two ways IMHO.
1. Most of the people in the world are intellectual nitwits that I as a skeptic am far superior too.

2. Most of the people in the world are not particularly interested in study or critical thinking and therefore are not reliable sources of information on some issues.

I tend to think he meant two. It sounds like you tend to think he meant one.

We can't really know unless he tells us but since I'm a skeptic I probably won't believe him anyway unless of course he agrees with me then I will trust him.

 

[The Painter]

I think Pogo was right

Yes, exactly.

 

[CapelDodger]

CD's post might be taken two ways IMHO.
1. Most of the people in the world are intellectual nitwits that I as a skeptic am far superior too.

2. Most of the people in the world are not particularly interested in study or critical thinking and therefore are not reliable sources of information on some issues.

I tend to think he meant two. It sounds like you tend to think he meant one.

We can't really know unless he tells us but since I'm a skeptic I probably won't believe him anyway unless of course he agrees with me then I will trust him.

I do mean it the second way. In my experience most people don't spend their time thinking about relatively abstract matters. They accept what they hear if they like the sound of it, and reject it if they don't. People who take an interest in truth and pleasure in thinking (people like us) are pretty peculiar all in all.

That doesn't mean I have contempt for the majority, regular folk. I'm dubious about giving them the vote, but that's a different matter.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How could he possibly claim 4^x? It's like that joke about the phycisist evaluating the claim that all odd numbers are prime. "Three is prime, five is prime, seven is prime, nine is experimental error..." The fact that the actual values have absolutely no relation to the "expected" values does not faze him?

Apparently not, because he keeps saying that we're just seeing the beginning of the curve. It would vary as 4^x if what the program did was find 1 working combination out of all the 4^x possibilities. But that is not what it does.

~~ Paul

 

[Bob Klase]

But on the other hand, when it comes to his weekly card game he is analytical enough to not be drawing to inside straights in the wrong situations.

Is there a right situation to draw to an inside straight?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Has anyone ever heard of a fellow by the name of Dr. David Baugh? At least I think that was his name, it's been a while. He's a 'creation scientist' I saw on TV some years back. Once I stumbled across the program I couldn't look away. It was like watching a jetliner full of orphans crash into a bus full of little, sweet old ladies. Baugh, who's doctorate is in theology and not any form of scientific field, proceeded to explain to preacher/host of the show that all the scientific evidence completely supports a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. The funniest of us couldn't come up with his sort of "evidence" in a no holds barred contest to crack each other up. During the presentation he even stated that the goal of his institute was to only accept evidence that supports their interpretation of Genesis. All evidence that doesn't can safely be discarded because they know that it is in error due to the absolute literal truth of the Bible. These are the sorts of "scientists" that Haggard was obviously referring to. We know that they are not using sound science but they serve their purpose in reassuring the faithful that evolutionary biologists are a bunch of crackpots.

Steven

"Half the human population is dumber than the average idiot" George Carlin

 

[American]

And then I realized the fundamental communication problem we were having. He had somehow absorbed two things:

1) [This is less important.] He believed that the "theory of evolution" is solely about human evolution.

2) [This is the important one.] He actually believed that the "theory of evolution" is this: OK, you got an ape. Not as a species. An individual. It's knuckle-walking on the savannah, eating leaves and whatnot, and then, one day, poof! It turns into a man. The human race is born. That's evolution.

My own epiphanies regarding the common beliefs of common men are usually concurrent with a blatant disregard for their humanity as I realize that lies, beatings, and cattle prods are all appropriate tools for controlling the masses.

Don't try to educate dim individuals. It's a dangerous thing.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Has anyone ever heard of a fellow by the name of Dr. David Baugh?...

We know that they are not using sound science but they serve their purpose in reassuring the faithful that evolutionary biologists are a bunch of crackpots.

Steven

"Half the human population is dumber than the average idiot" George Carlin

Between Veith and Hovind, I was not willing to look up yet another crackpot creation-pseudoscientist, but I'm willing to bet the "Discovery Institute" supportst his Baugh guy, and I'm also willing to bet his "docotorate" came from one of those bible colleges. I can just see his thesis...

argh argh argh.

NDs and DCs can call themselves doctors. The above crackpots can call themselves doctors. The word "doctor" means nothing to me anymore.

 

[lister]

The most prevelent, but subtle, misconception I come across is two fold:
1) Not understand that the individual mutations are a random occurance, not a deterministic serial set of events
2) Whether or not a mutation continues is based upon whether or not the mutation benefits the reproductive success of the individual

Yes, I absolutely agree.

I was reading a recent thread over on Rapture Ready about whether homosexuality is genetically influenced (and what a bizarre read it was too). They were condemning evolution because it would make no sense to "evolve" a preference for same sex relations for continuation of the species.

They then started conjecturing what an evolutionist's defence of such an argument would be, and they decided that the evolutionist would argue that evolution "decided" to produce homosexuality so that the species wouldn't overpopulate the planet (or something like that).

The point is that they cannot get rid of this idea of "design", and appreciate that mutations are a totally random process.

 

[Bud Fox]

Has anyone ever heard of a fellow by the name of Dr. David Baugh? At least I think that was his name, it's been a while. He's a 'creation scientist' I saw on TV some years back. Once I stumbled across the program I couldn't look away. It was like watching a jetliner full of orphans crash into a bus full of little, sweet old ladies. Baugh, who's doctorate is in theology and not any form of scientific field, proceeded to explain to preacher/host of the show that all the scientific evidence completely supports a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. The funniest of us couldn't come up with his sort of "evidence" in a no holds barred contest to crack each other up.

h++p://ww.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html (I can't post URL's yet as I have <15 posts).

 

[Art Vandelay]

Apparently not, because he keeps saying that we're just seeing the beginning of the curve.

I don't see what the point is of posting the numbers for the beginning of the curve is, if the pattern that he claims exists doesn't show up until much later.

 

[Angus McPresley]

h++p://ww.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html (I can't post URL's yet as I have <15 posts).

Thanks, Bud. Here's the link for those too lazy to cut and paste...