Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[T.Rex]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Just now I watched a "Evolution vs. Creationism" TV show where ...

Hi CheeseHead,
I think you miss the main problem about creationism-inclined people. You try to present/provide them a rationale way to decide which theory is true of false. You want them to study and analyze and take a decision based on the logic in their brain. You miss the main points.
I see at least two possibilities:
First, most of the people that are inclined to believe in creationism do not have the same level of logical brain than you have. Probably they are not able to do simple analysis like: if A implies B, and if B implies C, then A implies C. That's probably due to their level of education or simply because they were not able (less powerful brain or lazy student) to learn logic at school. So they are not able to see and also to understand the gaps in the false proofs given by people believing in creationism.
Second, many of these people do not want to believe the official way, because they think that official people (politics, searchers, ...) are lying, or because they want to have the opposite opinion compared to the scientist because they hate them or want to do something different.

So, which solutions do we have ?
Education !
Programs at school must insure that all children do receive an education that enables them to analyze and decide by them-selves. Not sure all children in the USA do receive this kind of education ... (and sure not all children in my country (France) now do receive this kind of education too !).

From my point of view, the problem is the same than:
- why so many people in USA do believe in God ?
- why so many people did vote Bush for President ?
About the second one, I'm also asking myself why so many people in France did vote two times Mitterrand for French president ... (but Mitterrand, who was a lyer, was also very smart (a lawyer !). Bush is not ...).
About belief, the French State has faced and defeated Catholic Religion one hundred years before now: catholism and religion have been completely separated from the State in France, though political people in USA still swear on a Bible or the Koran now ...).

Do you remember Lemaître ? the guy who invented the Big Bang ? He belonged to the (Belgium) Catholic Church and was able to do deep research about Physic. It is possible to believe both in God and in Science. Not sure many people in the USA are able now ...

Tony

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by T.Rex

You try to present/provide them a rationale way to decide which theory is true of false. You want them to study and analyze and take a decision based on the logic in their brain.

Yes, I knew it wasn't aimed in the most effective direction. I'm going to a different tack soon.

Just because I posted something about misleading rhetoric or logic doesn't mean I think that's the main or "real" problem. I have my own imperfections, such as desire to clean up small points before tackling big ones.

First, most of the people that are inclined to believe in creationism do not have the same level of logical brain than you have. Probably they are not able to do simple analysis like:

No. There I think you're wrong. It's a matter of different world-view (as in the book "Moral Politics"), not lesser analytical ability.

Psychology, not intelligence.

In general, it is a mistake to characterize those who disagree with you as having lesser intellect. Underestimation like that will lead you down the wrong path.

That's probably due to their level of education or simply because they were not able (less powerful brain or lazy student) to learn logic at school. So they are not able to see and also to understand the gaps in the false proofs given by people believing in creationism.

No, that's not it.

There are, indeed, connections between creationism and quality of education, but not along that axis.

Second, many of these people do not want to believe the official way, because they think that official people (politics, searchers, ...) are lying, or because they want to have the opposite opinion compared to the scientist because they hate them or want to do something different.

I disagree with those particular statements, but do agree that it's important to consider psychological motivations.

So, which solutions do we have ?
Education !

Yes, education is key, but not children's school education -- that's a consequence, not a cause. Focusing on that first will miss the real issues of power.

Who plans and provides children's school education? Adults.

How is it determined which adults do that planning and providing? Creationists figured that one out decades ago.

Why have creationists been able to maneuver themselves into positions of power and leverage in making decisions about children's education? Because most liberals don't understand their worldview and psychology.

The recent Dover court case was newsworthy, but not nearly as important as the way that U.S. fundamentalists took advantage of the 1965 Civil Rights Act to magnify their influence.

How the U.S. 1965 Civil Rights Act had the unintended consequence of spurring the establishment of a system of fundamentalist private schools and a method for systematically attacking public schooling is important. (Here I'm just hinting, not trying to explain yet. That'll be later.)

We noncreationist adults need to educate ourselves about the worldview and psychological motivations of creationists and other religious fundamentalists, plus their political efforts. Otherwise, our own efforts may be entirely wasted.

Once I read George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" (I suppose there are other works covering similar ground), I realized that I had to approach creationism in a whole new way (in addition to the logic approach, which is minor). That I have not yet shown much of that change in this forum is related to my own personal faults. It's on the way.

Programs at school must insure that all children do receive an education that enables them to analyze and decide by them-selves. Not sure all children in the USA do receive this kind of education ...

... and then you ask: Why not?

Who has been responsible, and how did they create this situation?

From my point of view, the problem is the same than:
- why so many people in USA do believe in God ?
- why so many people did vote Bush for President ?

Yes, those are connected to the creationism problem -- through the worldview and psychology.

- - - - - -

By the way,

Moderators:

This is on-topic because it's all scientifically connected. Details to follow.

- - - - - -

Originally Posted by T.Rex

About the second one, I'm also asking myself why so many people in France did vote two times Mitterrand for French president ... (but Mitterrand, who was a lyer, was also very smart (a lawyer !). Bush is not ...).

Well, maybe it has to do with moral worldviews that differ from yours. Or maybe not; I haven't studied French politics.

[T.Rex]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

No. There I think you're wrong. It's a matter of different world-view (as in the book "Moral Politics"), not lesser analytical ability.
Psychology, not intelligence.
In general, it is a mistake to characterize those who disagree with you as having lesser intellect. Underestimation like that will lead you down the wrong path.

Humm. You're right. Let say that many (too many) people are not able to do the complex analysis required when reading a proof of darwinism or creationism and they follow the guy who explains his theory in the best way. Many others have a very good intellect but have a wrong database in their brain, due to the wrong education they have received (like believing to all the stories described in the Bible as an example).

Yes, education is key, but not children's school education -- that's a consequence, not a cause. Focusing on that first will miss the real issues of power.

Who plans and provides children's school education? Adults.

How is it determined which adults do that planning and providing? Creationists figured that one out decades ago.

Why have creationists been able to maneuver themselves into positions of power and leverage in making decisions about children's education? Because most liberals don't understand their worldview and psychology.

The recent Dover court case was newsworthy, but not nearly as important as the way that U.S. fundamentalists took advantage of the 1965 Civil Rights Act to magnify their influence.

How the U.S. 1965 Civil Rights Act had the unintended consequence of spurring the establishment of a system of fundamentalist private schools and a method for systematically attacking public schooling is important. (Here I'm just hinting, not trying to explain yet. That'll be later.)

Hu. That's too specific about the USA: I did not know such details about the fact that creationists have so much power to decide about education in the USA. In France we have a problem of the same kind: people deciding about the books and programs of our children have communist ideas in their mind: all children must have the same education, so they make books and programs simpler and easier so that all children can succeed the Bacalauréat.

We noncreationist adults need to educate ourselves about the worldview and psychological motivations of creationists and other religious fundamentalists, plus their political efforts. Otherwise, our own efforts may be entirely wasted.

Right. Know the ennemy before fighting.

Well, maybe it has to do with moral worldviews that differ from yours. Or maybe not; I haven't studied French politics.

You should. You would find our politic really funny. 5 years ago, we had 16 candidates for being President, at first vote ... This year, there are plenty of candidates. I hope Mr Sarkozy will be President and that things will change. Otherwise (Mme Royal, Mr Le Pen, F. Bayrou) we are dead: the debt of the State is enormous (2,000,000,000,000 Euros) and the industry is reducing, year after year. There is a joke: "France is the only communist country in the world that has succeeded (up to now ...)."
Hopefully, creationists are rare in France. But, recently, I've read about a Muslim creationist from another country who sent books explaining his theory to many French schools. Unbelievable.
T.

[Xyzzy]

Laurent Jalabert for president!

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Laurent Jalabert for president!

Actually, it might be a good idea to only limit French candidates for high office to famous cyclists - those folks have proven they can do at least *something* really well, which requires tenacity.

But in that case I'd have to support Bernard Hinault - vive le Badger! (But Jalabert would be a good VP.)

One more reason to choose cyclists: they're their own best "spokespersons."

[Xyzzy]

BH would be my favorite but he is happy tending to his farm.

Edit: Come to think about it, Richard Virenque would be the most likely choice. The French love him, even after the Festina Affair.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Edit: Come to think about it, Richard Virenque would be the most likely choice. The French love him, even after the Festina Affair.

But that makes perfect sense - the French love their heroes to be flawed - politicians should have messy love affairs (maybe blow up a Greenpeace ship or build some colossal and controversial architecture thingie if things get slow on the nooky front - worked for Mitterand), cyclists should be involved in messy doping scandals (Virenque & the Festina affair). Hinault is a bit of an exception: no real scandal taint, he was just such an egotistical bastard that the French couldn't help but love him.

(It's like the English with Isaac Newton and Winston Churchill).

I do so love taking one or two signal cases and turning them into broad generalizations about national character. :TU:

But we were supposedly talking about evolution...

Edit: "And I will love him and hug him and call him Reeshard..."

[Xyzzy]

In the off chance you are remotely interested in the god that is BH, his book, Memories of the Peloton, is an excellent read.

Also good reading, if you like scandals, is Willy Voet's Breaking the Chain. RV is a central character in this book.

We can arrange to mail them to you if you want. Maybe even the new Pantani book, too.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by T.Rex

Let say that many (too many) people are not able to do the complex analysis required when reading a proof of darwinism or creationism and they follow the guy who explains his theory in the best way.

... which can work on either side. Lots of folks who accept or agree with evolution don't do so because they've worked out a detailed analysis for themselves, or even been shown one.

Many others have a very good intellect but have a wrong database in their brain, due to the wrong education they have received (like believing to all the stories described in the Bible as an example).

... or like accepting evolution only because one has not heard the other side. So that, too, can work both ways.

That's too specific about the USA:

Sorry ... I was only outlining, but you're right. AFAIK creationism is very much a USA phenomenon, and I don't know any details of its manifestations elsewhere, so I'll have to refer to US-specific events and structures, but I'll try to remember to explain for others. Please feel free to point out any future USAisms that need explanation!

I did not know such details about the fact that creationists have so much power to decide about education in the USA.

Neither do most people here. I happen to have noticed them for a long time. Creationists have been specifically targeting school boards and textbook approval committees in the US since the 1970s.

I grew up knowing that many fundamentalist Christians in the US still believed that the Earth was only a few thousand years old, even decades after the 1925 John Scopes trial (the "Monkey Trial", as in the 1960 movie "Inherit the Wind" [featuring, BTW, Gene Kelly in a completely non-dancing role]). (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial) In 1965, soon after the 40th anniversary of that trial, my speech class had a conference call with John Scopes himself. (Our assistant teacher, who was acting in a university stage production of "Inherit the Wind", arranged the call.) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherit_the_Wind)

(But note that the "Inherit the Wind" play on which the movie was based, while ostensibly about the Scopes trial, was actually aimed to criticize the early-1950s anti-Communism investigations of the House Un-American Activities Committee and US Senator Joseph McCarthy and does not try to present the Scopes trial as it actually happened. Neither does the movie.)

Then when I went to college in southern California, I found that we were not far from several fundamentalist institutions. Some of my friends made an expedition to one and brought back some literature (as they also did from the Church of Scientology) to laugh at.

Out of curiosity as to how the creationists could justify such a theory, I subscribed to the Institute for Creation Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institu...ation_Research) newsletter for a few years.

In 1978 I was shocked to learn that some of my co-workers who had attended public school in Minnesota had been taught that dinosaurs and humans coexisted! (I thought they were kidding me, but my questioning got only sincere answers.)

Then I didn't pay attention for a while.

Next thing I know, they're all over, trying to get on public school boards, even right here in the Milwaukee suburb where I live, so they can change science curicula to include creationism!

You would find our politic really funny.

That would be a welcome change from finding my own nation's politics to be alarming. :-)

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

In the off chance you are remotely interested in the god that is BH, his book, Memories of the Peloton, is an excellent read.

Also good reading, if you like scandals, is Willy Voet's Breaking the Chain. RV is a central character in this book.

Those sound interesting - but please, only if they're out in paperback - wouldn't want you to blow your retirement nest egg or anything. Tell you what: I'll trade you a copy of my upcoming vortex-flow paper (this is finishing some PhD thesis work why a former student of mine in my Cleveland-professor days) for one or both biker books. (I know, I'm totally ripping you off - but if I die scandalously like Princess Di, you could make money by forging "To Mike, my secret lover" and my signature and selling it on eBay.)

We can arrange to mail them to you if you want. Maybe even the new Pantani book, too.

Is that the one that comes with a free bonus inject-at-home kit? Is it by Pantani, or someone else. (maybe send me a link.) He, he, el Jefe calling him "Elefantino" - he never quite lived that one down.

[Xyzzy]

We were just going to mail you the books to read and then you could mail them back.

We're not sure it is wise to send pharmaceuticals by mail, without a prescription, so you are on your own for that stuff.