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] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions



I know I'm going to regret being drawn into this, but I'm willing to go one
more round...

Bob, I'm unclear exactly what it is that you "absolutely disagree with"? I
said that Fundamentalists may be plentiful in some parts of the country. I
didn't specify the South, but that's certainly one of the places. You say
it's a problem in Florida. Ok... I don't see grounds for disagreement so
far.

I made some statements about the nature of science, with which I HOPE we are
in agreement.

I said that there are people who feel it is their duty to debunk religion.
Since you see religion as being "toxic", that suggests that you should be
numbered among them, but if I'm wrong about that, I'm sure you'll let me
know. Again, no disagreement that I can see.

You introduced a strawman argument in refutation of something I never wrote,
implying that I said that science and religion are both based on "faith".
While there IS always some degree of uncertainty in scientific explanations
of how the world functions (why else would we continue to test?), Faith as a
part of religion is quite a different thing. Faith in the religious sense
is belief in the absence of clear evidence. If there were clear evidence,
there would be no need for Faith. So despite you having introduced a new
element that was never a part of what I wrote, I find us still in agreement.

You say that "science teachers avoid teaching anything about evolution", but
that certainly isn't the case way up here in New York. So here we disagree
to some extent, but this was, again, not something I wrote.

So let's get to the parts I WROTE that you probably disagreed with... I
said that there are a small number of people "who insist on a literal
interpretation of the Bible". I believe this to be the case. I think most
Christians can intellectually separate issues of Faith from the results of
the application of the scientific process. You bring up the size of the
opposition, and I wrote that we have swelled the ranks of science opponents
largely through the actions of people who believe that religion needs to be
debunked, and who used science as a club to DO it.

From my point of view, the problem is the extent of GROWTH of opposition to
science over the years. Exactly WHY has this occurred, and can it be
reversed? I contend that the bulk of "opposition" consists of people who
could be swayed from opposition if they didn't feel that their beliefs were
under attack. The rallying point, for both sides, is, of course, the issue
of evolution.

You, for example, state, "when you look at the percentage of Americans who
believe in creationism we see that science education in the United States is
a dismal failure." Now I find that an interesting comment. So is (one of)
the purposes of science education to eliminate the belief in a Creation? If
it is, then I can see why a growing number of Christians, in particular,
would take offense. I personally don't see that as a legitimate goal of
science education. I want students to understand the process involved in
science. I want them to evaluate evidence and draw conclusions about what
is going on. In terms of evolution, I want them to know that organisms
change over time; something that is absolutely FACT, and absolutely
irrefutable. I would also want them to understand that extending this FACT
leads to the reasonable conclusion that current-day organisms were quite
different in the distant past, and that it may be that everything ultimately
evolved from a single-celled organism, which itself developed from
non-living material. I don't, frankly, feel that it is my responsibility or
function to tell them that we KNOW we're right about this, that this is what
they should believe, and that any other belief is absolutely, positively,
false. Why should I care if someone believes in Creation? How is that a
threat or impediment if that someone understands how to collect evidence,
evaluate it, and draw logical conclusions? Shouldn't the purpose of
education be to help people to evaluate evidence when deciding what THEY
choose to believe? If, after all that, they still believe that a Creation
occurred, how am I (pr they) diminished by that?

You can't stamp out belief in Creation. You cannot eliminate religion.
Better opponents than you attempted it in years past, AND IT DIDN'T WORK!
If this is your goal, then you are doomed to failure. I'd like to avoid the
outcome that Christians, generally, become enemies of science. Asserting a
false certitude regarding scientific explanations/conclusions is not
acceptable to me. I think that it is not only intellectually dishonest, but
also detracts from the process... AND... in the case of evolution,
unnecessarily antagonizes a HUGE group of people who WILL respond in
opposition. If you disagree with anything I've said, then so be it.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


I absolutely disagree with this. I am a board member on the Florida
Citizens for Science, I can tell you that attacks against science education
is no
small problem. And when you look at the percentage of Americans who believe
in creationism we see that science education in the United States is a
dismal failure. Even absent fundamentalist attacks, science teachers avoid

teaching anything about evolution. The United States is an anomaly in this,
and the cause is the powerful influence of fundamentalist religion.



My own personal views are that religion is toxic, societies with less
religiosity score better in just about all factors related to societal well

being, though arguably this is a chicken and egg situation, social
structures
which a high degree of insecurity certainly foster religious belief.


Just about everything in the Bible and Koran are in total conflict with
everything science has learned about the Universe. To suggest otherwise
seems
to me rather amazing. Also science and religion are NOT both based on
faith. Faith is belief absent evidence and even when evidence exists which
refutes what is believed. Science is based on skepticism, there are no
sacred
truths in science. We always hear that science is based on the faith that
the Universe is orderly or some variation of this. Well, this is nonsense,
it
confuses a working assumption with a faith based belief, they are very
different things. Science has come to view the Universe as orderly because
science works. The models we create are predictive and allow us to create
technology. There is nothing magic about the scientific method, it's just
the
application of observation and reason in the interests of understanding the

Universe. It has nothing to do with faith.



Bob Zannelli

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

In a message dated 11/19/2010 2:28:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rmcder@gmail.com writes:

I admit that I've read little of the commentary on this subject. What
little I have read has followed the predictable progression one comes to
expect in such discussions. John's comments below are somewhat unique,
ime,
and demonstrate an unusual level of common sense. Consequently, I'm
motivated to make a few comments of my own; ones I've made before in other
venues and at other times...

Science is, imo, a process that can help us understand how the world
"works". Religion is a rigid framework for giving the world some
context/meaning. The two don't HAVE to be in general opposition, and,
again
imo, the factions that ARE truly opposed are relatively small. The ranks
in
opposition, on both sides, however, have been swelled by the actions/words
of the opposing zealots. It need not be so.

On the one hand, we have a very vocal, but SMALL group of Christians who
insist in a literal interpretation of the wording of the Bible. On the
other, we have a vocal, but probably ALSO small, group of individuals who
feel it their duty to "debunk" the former group. Unfortunately, science is
the tool they choose to use in the debunking process. These two hard-line
positions are absolutely in conflict and will NEVER be otherwise. The
trick
is not to expand the conflict to include individuals with moderate views
who, feeling under threat, are compelled to engage.

While Fundamentalist Christians may be plentiful in some areas of the US,
they remain a tiny minority of Christians in general, much less religious
believers, much less people in the US. I think it's easy to overlook that.

In the first and third quoted sections below, John points out the easiest
way to gut scientific opposition, leaving only the most zealous of
science's
opponents. Don't allow science to become a blunt instrument of attack on
religion. Don't over-represent what science is. Explain how science works
and, yes, the limitations inherent in it.

I can understand the temptation to convert the "ignorant, ultra religious"
from their misguided beliefs, but it CAN'T BE DONE! This hard-core group
is
simply going to counter-attack, and as the "scientific" response ramps up,
millions of moderate Christians are going to be forced into their camp,
reinforcing and expanding their influence. While you can contain a
handful,
you can't contain ALL religious believers.

In the second section below, John refers to the limitations that a lack of
belief in evolution would impose on a biologist. I would point out that a
belief in the process of evolution, as in change over time, does not
contradict anything in the Bible. The conflict arises when one
extrapolates
that into gross morphological changes over millions of years. One is
observable and is clearly fact; the other, however likely to be the case,
is
not nearly as certain.

In the third section below, John outlines the blueprint for marginalizing
opposition. It comes down to not launching an all-out, scorched-earth
conflict, or over-selling the certitude of science. Instead, it suggests
that we do a better job of explaining what science is (and isn't).

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John
Clement
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 11:35 AM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions

<snip>

So both religion and science have moved on. But some churches have
retained
an absolutist Fundamentalist view of their writings. This comes up against
the scientific views and conflict ensues. To a certain extent this can be
defused by teaching students that science creates models of the physical
world not "truth".

One can be a good solid state physicist and believe that the world is only
6000 years old, because these do not come in conflict. But to believe in
geology and not in evolution is cutting the line finer. Essentially the
individual compartmentalizes the two things. But one can not be a good
astronomer and believe in the Young Earth idea. One can not be a good
biologist and disbelieve evolution. It might be possible to be a good
biologist and an anti-evolutionist if you were an experimentalist studying
say diseases that affect certain species. But a biological theoretician
would need evolution as part of their model for how things got to be the
way
they are.

<snip>

On our part we need to teach students in such a way that they understand
where our ideas come from, and that these ideas are not absolute truth, but
provisional models. That would help students greatly, and at the same time
help defuse the anti-science rhetoric. Also, students need to learn how to
use critical thinking. Since the majority of HS and college graduates do
not test at the formal operational level, it is difficult for them to
understand science. The formal operational level is defined in terms of
scientific/mathematical tests.




_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l