More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Bill Chameides

Bill Chameides

Posted: October 4, 2010 04:43 PM

Crossposted with www.thegreengrok.com.

Richard Dawkins speaks of evidence and theories.

Yesterday I had an unexpected treat. Richard Dawkins, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist, was making a stop at Duke on his national tour promoting his new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. At the last minute I was asked to join a small group having brunch with him and was given a front-row seat at his talk in the afternoon.

Richard Dawkins at Duke, the same day as the blessing of the Animals service
Biologist Richard Dawkins (top) spoke at Duke on October 3. Later that afternoon, Father Michael Martin blessed animals for the annual Blessing of the Animals service. (Photo of Dawkins by Ashley Yeager / Photo of ceremony by Megan Morr/Duke Photography)

Dawkins is quintessentially upper-class British. Well-spoken, gracious, dressed impeccably even on a Sunday morning, he has a sharp wit that can be quite cutting in a subtle kind of way when he wants it to be. Great fun when you're on his side, not so much when you're not. Yesterday there were lots of laughs for the folks who fall on the side of Dawkins's cause célèbre.

That cause is evolution: that Darwin's theory of evolution is largely fact, not conjecture or speculation or hypothesis. And that is certainly the case. In his talk yesterday, as in his many popular books, he does a magnificent job of explicating the science, the evidence, and the history of how that science and evidence were developed.

Talking Science With a Political Edge

Going a good deal further than the science, Dawkins went on to ardently defend the positions of atheism and agnosticism and the notion of separation of church and state. To end what he perceives as the social stigma of atheism, he urges all atheists to "out" themselves by wearing a red "A" on their lapel. More about all this, including how to get your own "A," can be found at his foundation's Web site. (No endorsement intended.)

So in addition to the natural sciences, the events yesterday had a good deal of the social sciences and politics in them as well. At times, with its mention of Web sites and the suggestion that people organize and send money, Sunday's lecture had the feel of a political rally. Most of the time, however, it was pretty glorious science.

So what does all this have to do with TheGreenGrok and the environment?

For one, the fundamental truth underpinning all of biology and much of Earth science (and therefore the study of the environment) is the theory of evolution. And so, for those of you wanting to understand the environment but lacking knowledge about evolution, one of Dawkins's books would be a good place to start.

Understanding the Science and the Terms Used by Scientists

I am also struck by the parallels between the politics of evolution and the politics of climate change.

  • These two issues should not be political, but they clearly are. The demographics of the people who deny evolution are remarkably similar to those of the people who deny climate change.
  • Confusion over the word theory hurts the science. When scientists apply the word theory, they mean "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of (observed) phenomena." Many lay people confuse this scientific definition with the other definition of theory that means a hypothesis or conjecture. Hence, people think there is some sort of wiggle room or uncertainty with climate change or evolution because scientists call them theories, which in the lay person's mind connotes merely a hypothesis or "just a theory." But when scientists want to call something a hypothesis they use the word hypothesis; and when they want to call something an established explanation for observed facts they use theory.

    In that sense evolution is a theory and most definitely not "just a theory." To avoid the confusion between the different meanings of theory, Dawkins suggests dropping the "theory" (as used in the scientific sense) for the less ambiguous "fact of evolution."

    There are parallels with climate change here as well. That the globe is empirically warming is fact; it is "unequivocal" (see here and here). Other aspects of climate change, such as the attribution of warming to human activities, are not as well established as the basic tenets of evolution, but they are pretty close to being a theory in the scientific sense.
  • And finally there are the disturbing societal implications of the widespread rejection of the science of evolution and climate change for our society. Some 40 percent of Americans believe the world is only about 10,000 years old; a similar percentage rejects the notion that humans are causing the globe to warm.

What does it say about a society whose citizens blithely turn on the lights in their homes, drive their cars to and from work, talk and text on their smartphones, and tap away on their computers each day -- in short depend upon and reap the benefits of the scientific method and the work of scientists who used that method, but find no inconsistency in rejecting the results of that method when those results run contrary to their beliefs?

And what does it say about a society where parents refuse to allow their children to learn about science because that science runs contrary to their non-scientific beliefs?

And what does it say about a society that rationalizes not acting to avert potentially dangerous climate change, and therefore endangering those same children's future, by rejecting scientific fact?

It's all pretty ironic.

And so it was perhaps fitting that yesterday's event concluded on a wonderfully ironic note. Following Dawkins's talk, those of us gathered there in Page Auditorium were asked to clear the area for the next event: Duke's annual Blessing of the Animals, an opportunity for the Durham community to have their "well-mannered" animals (from dogs to turtles and horses) blessed by Duke ministers on the green in front of the Duke Chapel. A number of people who roundly applauded Dawkins's lecture rushed out to have their pets receive a blessing.

 

Follow Bill Chameides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/theGreenGrok

 
 
  • Comments
  • 28
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aubs
05:17 AM on 10/13/2010
I think it's important to understand that advocating a worldview devoid of inherent meaning, as Dawkins does when he belittles those with faith, comes with an intellectual price; namely, apathy. If the universe is a meaningless accident and when I die it will cease to exist for me, why should I care whether or not I'm causing global climate change?
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:03 PM on 10/06/2010
Dawkins is a genius. If you have not read "The selfish gene" you just don't understand. On the other hand, atheists are just as wrong as believers, sorry Dawkins, agnostics got it right.
07:42 AM on 10/07/2010
Don't get confused between knowledge and belief. Gnosticism, and its opposite agnosticism refer to the state of ones knowledge. Theism is the BELIEF in the existence of a god or gods. Conversely, atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Thus, if someone asks you if you believe in a god, if you can not answer a resounding "Yes", you are an atheist. If they ask the state of your knowledge, the only reasonable position is to be agnostic - claims of gnosticism should be intently scrutinized. We are all atheists with respect to so many millions of hopeful gods, why are you hesitant to go this one god further?
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:06 PM on 10/07/2010
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] wiki.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1 wiki.
12:56 PM on 10/06/2010
In moments of pessimism, I sometimes compare contemporary America with the Muslim empires of the Middle Ages. These Medieval societies made fantastic advances in astronomy, biology, chemistry, and mathematics, as well as literature, architecture, and geography. But then they turned around and became reactionary, Fundamentalist, and closed-minded and slipped into the cultural doldrums where they stagnate today. With all the Palinites, creationists, deniers, and other species of willful ignoramuses in our midst, are we taking that path?
05:04 PM on 10/06/2010
That is a very good observation. More should be written about it so that people realize what is a stake here.

Spirituality is personal, but religion is all about power. Religious organizations provide the perfect habitat for psychopaths to thrive in.
05:49 PM on 10/07/2010
The irony then is that in the case of the Roman Empire's abandoning of science in around the 2nd century and the Muslim abandoning of science in the 11th it was spiritualism and not religion at the core. Religions certainly have their dogmas but they often end up abusing the science or making unacceptable claims that can be scientifically rebuffed, the butt heads but religion doesn't really fully undermine science. However with regard to the dark ages it was spiritualism and the associated abandoning of scientific virtues that lead to it in the West. And the embracing of Sufi Islam and the spiritualism associated there which lead to the abandoning Baghdad as the scientific capital of the world.

Religions concern themselves with power, and though they may be commiserate with the evil galactic empire of Star Wars, the Empire still built death stars and allowed for interesting technological advances. Religion is certainly no friend to science, but science has only ever been killed by spiritualism. I fear the people who say "Science doesn't have all the answers" and "you can't really know anything" far more than those who claim that the universe was created by a middle eastern war god two thousand years after the Assyrians first brewed beer.
11:39 AM on 10/06/2010
Mamacat thinks there's "no harm done" by kids having their pets blessed,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Promoting rank superstition IS harmful, especially to impressionable children!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bill Chameides
03:35 PM on 10/15/2010
EDWARD KILLIAN: Does that extend to the Tooth Fairy? What about a child's imaginary friend?
01:04 AM on 10/06/2010
I would love to listen to Prof. Dawkins speak. I'm also sure that he would be strung up be the many religious fanatics here in Oklahoma.
04:00 PM on 10/05/2010
I have some constitutional and tax questions. Can someone help me here? Why is it that if I have a meeting place for Atheists I have to pay property tax but any group that believes in a god or gods does not have to pay property tax on their meeting place? If my Atheist group manages to make a profit we have to file income tax forms and pay taxes where a god based group does not. Shouldn't god based groups pay taxes like the rest of us?
photo
InTheSouth
Member of Reality-Based Community
11:23 PM on 10/05/2010
Well if you look back at the history of xianity, you will find that Constantine was the first to declare that religious groups did not have to pay taxes to the Roman Empire. He later had to define religious groups as only xian ones as people were setting up all sorts of crazy religious groups to get the tax exemption. Sound familiar? Anyway, when our country's founding fathers were setting things up, they wanted to keep religion from mingling with government so they gave them the exemption status as was customary and said that if they became political or tried to influence government that the exemption could be revoked. That's why you see the ACLU and other groups calling for the IRS to investigate certain churches at times. The tax exemption is sort of a pay off to keep their grubby hands out of our secular government. The religious groups have to be checked on this constantly as their basic aim (each and all of them) is world dominance. Atheists have no such agenda and need no such bribe. Atheists are not religious. Most of us could care less what the deluded folk believe, just don't put it in our courts or laws and don't teach it to our kids in the public schools.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:25 AM on 10/06/2010
Atheism is not a religion, so it does not qualify for a religious tax exemption.
08:49 PM on 10/07/2010
Say who? The government? Irreligion doesn't qualify for the same benefits and perks as does religion. But, the government isn't allowed to make those decisions as to what is and isn't a religion and whose religious beliefs are valid or not. The point isn't that atheism isn't a religion, but rather the government shouldn't be put into the position of making that decision. They cannot provide specific perks for religions without expressly respecting an establishment of religion.

Atheism isn't a religion, but that's not for the government to say.
photo
Uncle Bob
Darwin loves you.
04:23 AM on 10/05/2010
"A number of people who roundly applauded Dawkins's lecture rushed out to have their pets receive a blessing."

What was the number....2?
A-Superstitionist
Keep thy superstitions to thyself and out of laws
11:01 AM on 10/05/2010
Even if it were only 1, it is quite likely the result of childhood indoctrinations that are very difficult to completely get rid of as well as the desire of most people to avoid harassment by their immediate surroundings of the superstitious when not participating in such superstitious nonsense.
photo
Uncle Bob
Darwin loves you.
01:58 PM on 10/05/2010
gosh, some well known atheist should do lectures about that!

Something tells me you don't quite get why I thought that quote was a little silly in context.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bill Chameides
03:29 PM on 10/15/2010
Not being among the "number" who rushed out, I can only speculate, but I think they were wanting to participate in a Duke/Durham ritual that is more about community and less about the actual blessing. I don't think anyone takes the event seriously. But it nevertheless makes an interesting point about the value of religion in community life for many people, don't you think?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:26 AM on 10/06/2010
I know some very nice and smart people who like to take their pets and get them blessed. No harm done, and it makes the kids feel good.
photo
Uncle Bob
Darwin loves you.
02:06 PM on 10/06/2010
no harm other than reinforcing a delusion. But I wasn't suggesting it shouldn't have taken place, only that it was silly in context of the blog post.