After years in the trenches of the creation-evolution controversy I have come to appreciate the complexity of navigating the foggy world of knowledge claims. This is something that college students start learning to do in their first critical writing course and are supposed master by the time they write a senior thesis. Students begin researching on any topic by Googling and gathering various viewpoints in that way, which they then assemble into arguments. It takes time to learn the limitations of this approach and the importance of understanding that the opinions of someone who does not know what they are talking about are of no value.
A student doing a paper on evolution, for example, needs to learn that the opinion of Michelle Bachmann is of no value, as a recent HuffPost blog argued. Bachmann knows nothing about the topic and, while her opinion would be interesting because of her celebrity status, it would not be informed. In contrast, Jerry Coyne, when he isn't venting about the horrors of religion, writes a lot about evolution and is well-informed, as a leading biologist at a major university.
A student paper examining the pros and cons of evolution versus creation that pitted Bachmann against Coyne should receive an "F" for improper use of sources.
On the other hand, Michelle Bachmann has had extraordinary experience with raising children -- five of her own and an amazing 23 foster children. Her insights into foster care and family life would most likely be of great value -- more so than Jerry Coyne's, for example. But in both cases, the consensus of bodies of experts would be a far more reliable starting point. And it would be essential to note whether any individual, regardless of their expertise, was at odds with the scholarly community on the topic of interest.
This kind of critical thinking about sources and expertise is essential in navigating the complexity of our modern scientific world and developing sensible and defensible positions on everything from the age of the earth to the real cost of Medicare.
Unfortunately, America has an uneasy relationship with experts. Many people don't like the idea of consulting some egghead at a university to get scoop on complex problems, even though that egghead might be the world's leading expert and hold a position endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. Every night on Fox News Glenn Beck assaults expertise and education as if they are just different prejudices. He regularly pits his high school diploma against teams of Ivy League doctorates in a most amazing performance as America's leading anti-intellectual. A few hours later on Fox News, Sean Hannity hosts a "great American panel" in which he asks former beauty queens, football coaches, and country singers to comment on complex political and economic questions.
This sort of anti-intellectualism -- the religious and political roots of which are documented in Richard Hofstadter's classic work, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life and examined from another perspective in my forthcoming The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age -- provides much of the foundation for the assaults being made today on evolution. We are regularly told that we can "make up our own minds" about evolution. The preferred educational strategy being advanced is a "two models" approach where evolution and some version of anti-evolution -- like intelligent design -- are presented and students are encouraged to make up their own minds.
This is a disastrous approach to education -- anti-intellectualism disguised as democratic egalitarianism. To expose high school students to fringe perspectives, presented as genuine alternatives, and then encourage them to "choose" the one they like best is to send the message that there is no such thing as knowledge.
This approach appeals to those who don't like the consensus of knowledge-generating communities. If global warming is forcing unwanted regulations on the smoke from your factory, then alternative ideas are most welcome. If sound economics says that taxes should go up, then please find some unsound economics that says otherwise. And, if the scientific community says evolution is true, then please find a fringe group to say otherwise. After all, this is America and Americans think for themselves.
In The Language of Science and Faith Francis Collins and I cautioned our fellow Christians against holding out hope that there is a real alternative to accepting the consensus of the scientific community, especially as we see no need for Christians to be uneasy about evolution in the first place. We argue that it is significant that the scientific community has consensus on this question and that consensus is a powerful reason to accept the truth of evolution.
This argument, of course, doesn't sit well with the anti-evolutionists who have assaulted it as a bogus "appeal to authority." In a scathing review on the Discovery Institute website blasts The Language of Science and Faith as "full of appeals to authority and attacks upon the character and competence of Darwin-doubting scientists."
Our argument is described as a "rhetorical strategy" with the following statements as illustrations:
The author concludes that "Giberson and Collins don't want people to think for themselves on topics like evolution, but to simply capitulate to those whom they deem 'the leading experts.'" And "Dr. Giberson doesn't think that the average person should be allowed to "make up their own minds" on evolution."
This argument is a frontal assault on expertise and how to evaluate it. It is correct that a small percentage of credentialed scholars reject evolution. But this is true in every field. A small percentage of climatologists reject global warming; a few historians think the founding fathers were evangelicals or the holocaust never happened; a few economists still think supply side economics actually works. We do ourselves -- and our poor high school students -- no favors when we juxtapose the conventional wisdom of an entire community of scholars with that of a few fringe voices and invite people to choose which idea they like the best.
What I want for religious believers is what freshman critical writing instructors want for their students -- proper appreciation of sources. Invoking the consensus of the scientific opinion is not restricting "thinking" at all. It is encouraging critical thinking and the pursuit of genuine knowledge.
Follow Karl Giberson, Ph.D on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gibersok
One of the most breath taking accomplishments of science in this regard, was the prediction in 1948 by Gamow, Alpher, and Herman and later conformation by Penzias and Wilson of cosmic microwave background radiation, these guys were good, really good.
It would go a long way to help your cause, if you could make such a predictions based on the bible and the rest of us could go out there and confirm it. I don't mean something historical like Noah ark. I mean some big, frankly the bigger the better. Armageddon was a nice try, but it was kind of a flop better luck on October 21, I am routing for you guys.
Something on that scale would go a long way in your recruiting campaign . You might consider putting your A team guys on this.
just a suggestion.
Authorities are those people in power. We may not know how or why they got into their position, but we know that many of us depend on them when times get rough. I am having a rough time telling other people about this new theory of evolution and I am looking for those who will help and assist me to bring it to others, but it is slow going. I can't seem to find those who will repeat with me my findings.
Also on the authority issue: Under the rules of this new form of evolution, we have within us a higher kingdom that replaces human or earthly authority. While it is true, that human and earthly authority helps us to speak and make known what we know, it cannot serve as a replacement for inner authority - a higher kingdom trying to materialize.
Creationism merely substituting one unknown, how did life start, with another bigger unknown, how did god start. Not a very useful, in fact I can not think of one useful scientific consequence of either creationism or intelligent design and a review of the literature does not seem to point to one verifiable experiment base on either one.
Science is some what pragmatic in that it require mainly that a theory produce results neither creationism nor intelligent design does that.
I have no problem say this is something, I don't understand, it is not necessary to ascribe it to god. To do so does nothing useful except limit further inquiry. Base solely on your theory that god created it all, you can predict nothing of scientific use.
Simply because something is easy for you to understand does not make it true.
"If the general picture however of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created? How did that happen? Many cultures’ customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing.
If we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: Where did god come from?
If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?"
The trouble with that thought is this: Morality. Morality is what separates mankind from the rest of creation. It is the intrinsic knowledge or questioning of what is right and what is wrong. Because it is intrinsic, because morality is a part of us, it is logical that religion follows. It's why every culture has its own religion, because religion is based on a moral code, no matter how different those religions might be. Morality causes us to make basic decisions and, ultimately, difficult decisions every day. Even believing there should be "no religion" is a religion in itself, because religion is just a set of beliefs based on a moral code.
As i se religous people not performing any better than people without religion, I dont se the point. Religion based on a book with good moral and bad moral and even horrible advice can not be what we base the future on. I have bad feeling for the future if too many ppl start to take these books as law.
Many of us feel that there is something larger then us, larger than life. This is a personal feeling. Almost all of us will tell of different relations with these feelings even if we call it religion under the same god and book. How do we relate to this in the future with the increased feeling of one community on earth? Thats what I'm thinking about..
Also, is consensus among theologians a powerful reason to accept the "truth" of theism?
The article ends by saying "Invoking the consensus of the scientific opinion is not restricting "thinking" at all. It is encouraging critical thinking and the pursuit of genuine knowledge." How is invoking the consensus of scientific opinion encourage critical thinking? Invoking consensus has been constantly used to put down critical thinking. It is also interesting that he puts "thinking" in quotes. Why? Is it really not thinking?
I don't care how many people have embraced macro-evolution, it is still theory, and I do not see enough evidence for it, not to mention that it for me, it takes more faith to believe that in a world where things go from order to disorder, beings evolved to such a highly complex and organized state. Micro-evolution? Sure. Plenty of evidence.
My choices are not "Creation" or "Evolution." There is a third choice, and that choice is, "I don't really know" which is uncomfortable and human beings do not like that kind of ambiguity. I don't like it either, to be honest. But if we are honest with ourselves and with our children, we should not present anything about our origins as being absolute. Macro-evolution cannot be reproduced in a lab. There are things we just don't know.
Also wrong when you claim that what you call "macroevolution" cannot be reproduced in laboratory. Certainly true of complex organisms, since the time constraints of laboratory experiments do not allow for it, but that's when bacteria come in handy. The rapidity of their reproductive cycles allow for the observation of macroevolution in controlled laboratory conditions, and reports abound.
Oh, and your statement that we are clueless as to how the myriad of biological structures evolved is also incorrect. In fact, we learn more and more every day. Irreducible complexity has been permanently refuted long ago.
You are right, however, when you say that the theory of evolution is the only explanation for the abundance and variety of life on our planet. That's because it's the right one. It makes sense and is supported by an impressive body of evidence.
Prayer has incidentally yet to be recognized as an effective treatment for peritonitis.
The biological world is ripe with dead ends and legacies, hardly the hallmark of a intelligent designer, more of a system the is constantly in flux, constantly attempting to adapted to new challenges, sometime more successfully than others.
As for the effect of prayer, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It didn't always work for Jesus/God either, because of litttle or no Faith amongst the communities concerned. If you asked enough people enough questions, you might find someone who has been miraculously cured of perotinitis. Personally, I've heard of a woman developing a totally new pancreas as a result of a Christian man's prayer. You might wish to check ot Marlene Klepees, healed of cerebral palsy, as testified on you tube.
I can live with imperfection, as it makes life more challenging, for now.
However, while there may be failures in the biological world, the physical universe is impressively in order, isn't it.
Apart from my firm belief in God, as creator, I try to keep an open mind on the process of our development, but have a bias towards the Genesis account of Creation; I hope that open minded scientists will stumble upon this as 'fact' one day. Unfortunately debate on Creation versus Evolution is virtually banned in schools, which is poor, because evidence of Evolution is thin, too: who or what created hydrogen, exactly? Richard Dawkins says 'some higher intelligent beings' designed us!
And that is sad because we are blessed with analytical minds and reasoning that we apply to every other facet of our lives, but not to our quest to be closer to God. We have been taught that the English Holy Bible is the very word of God, not a letter or word misplaced and that if we dare, dare let our thoughts escape the literal translation, it is blasphemy, sacrilege, worthy of damnation. And (especially concerning the Old Testament), by adhering so rigidly to that dogma, we repress our God-given ability to wonder and marvel and learn from His creation.
it does NOT represent Christianity accurately.
"Dr. Giberson doesn't think that the average person should be allowed to "make up their own minds" on evolution."
If they really believed this, why did they set up a Discovery Institute in the first place?