12-26-05 (2) On Evolution
Now that the exmus holy day has been dispensed with, I can return to one of the topics that has captured my imagination over the past couple of years, namely, the debate between religious types and non-religious types over the theory of Evolution.
My position on the matter is that I doubt the theory of Evolution is an adequate explanation for the fossil record, but I more strongly doubt that the biblically related explanations of how life (and the universe) came to be are adequate, either. This makes me an agnostic, I suppose... But noticing the lines of dissent (against Evolution) within scientifically oriented circles is an interestingly time consuming activity. Also, noticing the dismissive attitudes of dissent FROM the more or less scientifically oriented circles (in response to the proposition of including the Creation story or Intelligent Design in school curricula) is an almost as interesting activity.
As regards the former, I won't burden this blog with any arguments since there's more than enough information to wade through from a google or yahoo search on the word "evolution". Do your own research if you're really that interested in finding the credible dissent. Suffice to say here that the dissent is voluminous enough to easily find.
My take on the dissenting views is that the theory of Evolution has been chugging along for so long that it has transformed into a cultural dogma, and that this inertial drag has made it difficult for rational people to feel comfortable with the dissenting views at first blush. This phenomenon of simply dismissing the idea that the theory of Evolution could possibly be wrong has quite a large potential for demonstration. One merely has to suggest it might be wrong to witness the phenomenon first hand.
Part of the problem is the dogmatic nature of the concept(s) behind anyone's acceptance of the theory of Evolution. Most people don't actually study the fossil record or spend much time in scholarly pursuits along these lines. Instead, we tend to fall into, essentially, a blind acceptance of the idea because it "fits", or an outright rejection of the idea because it doesn't "fit". As part of one's general world view, the evolutionary concept is, therefore, merely a belief for the overwhelming majority of people who support it. But this view includes a tendency in non-religious types to include a sense that one's view is based in rationality, scientific validity, and so forth. So there's a whole "package" of beliefs that tend to go along with it.
It's a very difficult thing to present any dissent against, because the general acceptance of it isn't really based in science, or any scientifically based work. It is, instead, based upon personal preference and belief. When you assail anyone's beliefs, they tend to react, rather than respond.
Another part of the problem is that within our cultural boundaries, any dissent against the theory of Evolution, or any of the concepts attached to it, is "pegged" for its "meaning". That meaning is quite simple, ie- if you don't support Evolution, then you support a religious view. There's no room for any other meaning at the outset. If one has doubts about the theory of Evolution, THEN one is obviously pushing the Creation story or, more recently, Intelligent Design.
Consequently, any demonstration of the cultural inertia attached to the theory of Evolution will be quite striking, but only if you're prepared to see it and have some clue what you're actually up against.
As regards the latter (the dismissive attitudes), this is something that I had been doing most of my life. Having been brought up in a relatively liberal environment, and having ended up believing that I'm a rational, science oriented type, I've tended to behave toward religious types with a sense of crypto-smugness. Proselytic door-knocking was something that I would tend to make my point of "drawing a line in the sand" and stop being polite about it, however.
Somewhere along the line, it occured to me that one of our most basic cultural dogmas included this thing called "freedom of religion" which, to be honest, I've never been able to work out in my mind. I mean, it's okay in my view that people all believe different things, and this is a passive "don't ask, don't tell" sort of concept. But it's abundantly clear to just about anybody who cares to look that beliefs include many examples of very active concepts. These active concepts include proselytizing, jihad, and marketing, to name a few. So, when it comes to the active concepts of beliefs and belief systems, how does this "freedom of religion" dogma actually work?
Well, I've never been able to figure that out.
The concept of "religious tolerance" enters in at this point. My sense of having always espoused religious tolerance is just fine when we're dealing with passive concepts of beliefs and belief systems. But it's most definitely at odds with various manifestations of the active concepts.
Interestingly enough, this whole line of reasoning began several years ago when a very religious co-worker at a previous workplace of mine did a little "button-pushing" on the subject of evolution. Now, I have to say at the outset that I found this guy very interesting because he was scholarly, a very competent engineer, and erudite. Most importantly, he was apparently very secure in his religious beliefs, since his interactions with me were not the typical proselytizing manifestations of a new convert, looking for some validation or support to keep him going. Instead, he was a friendly "player" and willing debater, far removed from any clever salesmanship. In other words, it was at the level of rational debate based in references to credible sources.
He succeeded in re-characterizing my former sense of holding that Evolution was based in "science", into a willingness to question it. And this was a very revealing interaction for me. In the first place, it strained my sense of being tolerant of other's beliefs, since I began with a "belief in" Evolution, and simply reacted to his not going along with it. This revealed my own behavior in the matter as being more proselytic, defensive, and similar to the new convert who's only looking for support! In fact, I came away from our interactions (over several months) with a renewed sense of my own leanings toward what "scientific" really means, and a growing sense of curiosity about not only the theory of Evolution, but much of our culture's other areas of ostensibly "scientifically" based ideas.
The bottom line on this subject is that I tend to be more interested in the cultural phenomena and behavioral phenomena behind any debates concerning the theory of Evolution. Meanwhile, within the scholarly circles of those scientists who have made geology and evolutionary theory their life's work, it's become clear to me that dissent is mounting over the validity and/or continued viability of the theory.
My position on the matter is that I doubt the theory of Evolution is an adequate explanation for the fossil record, but I more strongly doubt that the biblically related explanations of how life (and the universe) came to be are adequate, either. This makes me an agnostic, I suppose... But noticing the lines of dissent (against Evolution) within scientifically oriented circles is an interestingly time consuming activity. Also, noticing the dismissive attitudes of dissent FROM the more or less scientifically oriented circles (in response to the proposition of including the Creation story or Intelligent Design in school curricula) is an almost as interesting activity.
As regards the former, I won't burden this blog with any arguments since there's more than enough information to wade through from a google or yahoo search on the word "evolution". Do your own research if you're really that interested in finding the credible dissent. Suffice to say here that the dissent is voluminous enough to easily find.
My take on the dissenting views is that the theory of Evolution has been chugging along for so long that it has transformed into a cultural dogma, and that this inertial drag has made it difficult for rational people to feel comfortable with the dissenting views at first blush. This phenomenon of simply dismissing the idea that the theory of Evolution could possibly be wrong has quite a large potential for demonstration. One merely has to suggest it might be wrong to witness the phenomenon first hand.
Part of the problem is the dogmatic nature of the concept(s) behind anyone's acceptance of the theory of Evolution. Most people don't actually study the fossil record or spend much time in scholarly pursuits along these lines. Instead, we tend to fall into, essentially, a blind acceptance of the idea because it "fits", or an outright rejection of the idea because it doesn't "fit". As part of one's general world view, the evolutionary concept is, therefore, merely a belief for the overwhelming majority of people who support it. But this view includes a tendency in non-religious types to include a sense that one's view is based in rationality, scientific validity, and so forth. So there's a whole "package" of beliefs that tend to go along with it.
It's a very difficult thing to present any dissent against, because the general acceptance of it isn't really based in science, or any scientifically based work. It is, instead, based upon personal preference and belief. When you assail anyone's beliefs, they tend to react, rather than respond.
Another part of the problem is that within our cultural boundaries, any dissent against the theory of Evolution, or any of the concepts attached to it, is "pegged" for its "meaning". That meaning is quite simple, ie- if you don't support Evolution, then you support a religious view. There's no room for any other meaning at the outset. If one has doubts about the theory of Evolution, THEN one is obviously pushing the Creation story or, more recently, Intelligent Design.
Consequently, any demonstration of the cultural inertia attached to the theory of Evolution will be quite striking, but only if you're prepared to see it and have some clue what you're actually up against.
As regards the latter (the dismissive attitudes), this is something that I had been doing most of my life. Having been brought up in a relatively liberal environment, and having ended up believing that I'm a rational, science oriented type, I've tended to behave toward religious types with a sense of crypto-smugness. Proselytic door-knocking was something that I would tend to make my point of "drawing a line in the sand" and stop being polite about it, however.
Somewhere along the line, it occured to me that one of our most basic cultural dogmas included this thing called "freedom of religion" which, to be honest, I've never been able to work out in my mind. I mean, it's okay in my view that people all believe different things, and this is a passive "don't ask, don't tell" sort of concept. But it's abundantly clear to just about anybody who cares to look that beliefs include many examples of very active concepts. These active concepts include proselytizing, jihad, and marketing, to name a few. So, when it comes to the active concepts of beliefs and belief systems, how does this "freedom of religion" dogma actually work?
Well, I've never been able to figure that out.
The concept of "religious tolerance" enters in at this point. My sense of having always espoused religious tolerance is just fine when we're dealing with passive concepts of beliefs and belief systems. But it's most definitely at odds with various manifestations of the active concepts.
Interestingly enough, this whole line of reasoning began several years ago when a very religious co-worker at a previous workplace of mine did a little "button-pushing" on the subject of evolution. Now, I have to say at the outset that I found this guy very interesting because he was scholarly, a very competent engineer, and erudite. Most importantly, he was apparently very secure in his religious beliefs, since his interactions with me were not the typical proselytizing manifestations of a new convert, looking for some validation or support to keep him going. Instead, he was a friendly "player" and willing debater, far removed from any clever salesmanship. In other words, it was at the level of rational debate based in references to credible sources.
He succeeded in re-characterizing my former sense of holding that Evolution was based in "science", into a willingness to question it. And this was a very revealing interaction for me. In the first place, it strained my sense of being tolerant of other's beliefs, since I began with a "belief in" Evolution, and simply reacted to his not going along with it. This revealed my own behavior in the matter as being more proselytic, defensive, and similar to the new convert who's only looking for support! In fact, I came away from our interactions (over several months) with a renewed sense of my own leanings toward what "scientific" really means, and a growing sense of curiosity about not only the theory of Evolution, but much of our culture's other areas of ostensibly "scientifically" based ideas.
The bottom line on this subject is that I tend to be more interested in the cultural phenomena and behavioral phenomena behind any debates concerning the theory of Evolution. Meanwhile, within the scholarly circles of those scientists who have made geology and evolutionary theory their life's work, it's become clear to me that dissent is mounting over the validity and/or continued viability of the theory.
posted by Jeff Barnard at 7:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home