Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Is evolution something to believe in?



Since I've weighed in on this issue before, at least some of you know my feelings on the matter. For me, the core problem is that the public at large does not understand how science "works", and the resulting misconceptions color both sides of any argument involving science. I think Rick Tarara made the correct point by suggesting that better science education in the middle and high school years, emphasizing the PROCESS of science, would help. Of course the logistical problem there is that NCLB seems only to be concerned with english and math, and pretty much everything else is going to be offered up on the altar of expedience.

Bottom line: Science is a process that helps us to build models that approximate reality to varying levels of accuracy. However good a model seems to be, however, the process demands that we remain open to the possibility that said model is not, ultimately, "right" in the layman sense of the word. We can't avoid the fact that what we accept remains a "belief", but as John Denker points out, there are levels of "belief". The public doesn't really understand the distinction; they either think science is infallable (defined as being TRUE, RIGHT, CORRECT, or FACT), or they latch on to the uncertainties as evidence that science cannot be trusted. It doesn't help when, in their frustration with the second group, science people try to push the first group's interpretation of things.

I remain convinced that, given an accurate understanding of science, the public would find little reason to either blindly trust the pronouncements of science (or maybe more accurately, the reporting of such by the media), or to take violent issue with it. I think that would be a good thing. I also remain convinced that the whole breadth of things that fall under the heading of "evolution" only threaten a small handful of Christians, and any widespread support for their position can be avoided. Unfortunately, I don't think that we've done a very good job of cutting off that support. On the contrary, I think that many go out of their way to be antagonistic to anyone who professes their faith. I've been made uncomfortable on a number of occasions here by the apparent license some feel they have to criticise or poke fun at believers. It's unfortunate that even educated people cannot seem to rise above simple pettiness or to curb their personal smugness.

And it isn't just religion, of course; global warming as being a man-made effect is another area where unpopular points of view seem to require routine attack. Anyone spouting a contrary view is, apparently, deluded, ill-informed, or a shill for "big oil". And what difference does it really make? If we ARE primarily responsible, does anyone actually think there's a chance in hell that we can get things under control? With China and India entering explosive expansions of their economies? With the villification of nuclear power trumping the ecological damage done by harvesting and burning fossil fuels? With an ever-accelerating world population? Pardon me for being a pessimist, but it seems to me that at this point it's inevitable that we will find SOME way kill ourselves off - If good old mother nature doesn't do it for us first.