Unwittingly, I'm sure, Erik Verlinde may have provided a defining moment for the Discovery Institute and other groups that pretend their attacks on evolution are made in the name of science rather than as a mechanism to promote their narrow sectarian religious beliefs.
Verlinde is an internationally respected physicist who recently published a paper in which he asks the provocative question: does gravity exist? As Dennis Overbye explained it in the New York Times:
"For me gravity doesn't exist," said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself. Not that he can't fall down, but Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic, from which gravity "emerges," the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or that elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.
What does this have to do with the Discovery Institute's position on evolution?
The link is actually quite straightforward. Their rallying cry, taken up by the Texas State Board of Education; the Louisiana legislature and its governor, Bobby Jindal; and a number of other states, is that students are best served when they are taught the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. They've taken to using this shibboleth as a means of hiding their real intent -- bringing intelligent design creationism into public school science classrooms and laboratories.
If I'm wrong about their intent, we'll soon be seeing the Discovery Institute urging school boards to completely rework their basic physics curricula. But I'm not holding my breath.
The thing is, unlike virtually all those who attack evolution, Verlinde is a part of the mainstream scientific community and his challenging ideas are being published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. More than that, Verlinde is not alone in questioning what we know about gravity. Indeed, the community of professional physicists has been unable to adequately explain the mechanism of gravity. Some, mostly string theorists, posit the existence of a massless particle they've dubbed the graviton and claim that it is responsible for mediating the force of gravity, a force that has unlimited range. Others simply scoff at the notion of such a particle.
And yet, to date, there haven't been protests about the way our children are being taught physics in general and about gravity in particular.
The mechanisms of evolution, on the other hand, have long been understood, observed and measured. The attacks on evolutionary theory are coming from outside the scientific community, by people who are not actively conducting research in the field, by people who invariably have a religious rather than a scientific agenda they're trying to advance.
Does this mean that we currently know all we will ever know about evolution? Of course not! The scientific literature is replete with fascinating papers advancing our understanding of the field, questioning which evolutionary mechanism takes precedence under which set of environmental conditions, and providing experimental support for various ideas.
Beyond that, because of the seemingly endless attacks on evolution from those who find this scientific concept offensive on religious grounds, scientific societies around the world have weighed in by issuing statements in support of evolution. Sixty-eight Academies of Science, for example, have jointly authored a Statement on the Teaching of Evolution that makes it absolutely clear that there isn't a scientific controversy surrounding evolution. These academies represent countries as diverse as the United States, Albania, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, to name just a few.
In the United States, the American Anthropological Association, the American Geological Institute, the American Institute for Biological Sciences, the Botanical Society of America and the Society for Neuroscience along with a host of other high level organizations have issued similar statements. The fact is, regardless of what the Discovery Institute and others of its ilk claim, there isn't any controversy within the scientific community about the centrality and importance of evolutionary theory.
But expert opinion has yet to cause those attacking evolution to pause. Instead, they claim scientists are biased and our students deserve better. I'm well aware that the latest questions about gravity aren't likely to change the nature of the attacks. I am hopeful, however, that they might provide an opportunity to help the general public recognize the constant demand for school boards to reshape their curricula to allow students to focus on the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution for the sectarian ploy that it is.
If the Discovery Institute doesn't take up the scientific uncertainty of gravitational theory in the same way that it has approached evolution, then we can turn to one of the great philosophers of our time for guidance. As I Love Lucy's Desi Arnaz so presciently said, the Discovery Institute "has some 'splaining to do."
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
"When scientists think about evolution in the first sense -- i.e., has it actually happened -- they STRONGLY AGREE that it has, and many PRONOUNCE evolution in this first sense to be a fact." Niles Eldredge a-theist. And, this is followed in the book with:
"Scientists admit when they don't have the faintest idea why or how something happened, [really?] and the ultimate origin of matter -- at least so far in the annals of science -- is a beautiful example."
So, they strongly agree, now that real proof for you, they don't have the faintest idea why or how things happen. Well, then, why are they trying to force us to believe what they themselves don't know? Science used to strongly agree that washing hands before surgery didn't matter either. So much for "science".
"Teach the controversy" campaigns of the recent past also use ethical and emotional appeals as schemes for persuading audiences that basic fairness demands equal time be given both concepts in public schools. Unfortunately many contemporary audiences appear unaware of the basic dishonesty being promoted as a fair solution. Evolution is likely the most widely tested concept of modern science with new results and evidence supporting evolutionary theory appearing in a wide array of peer-reviewed journals on a monthly basis. In all instances an interlinking web of tested evidence ranging across scientific disciplines supports the basic premises of evolution. Well-tested and documented evidence from the physical and life sciences stands available for review and evaluation by anyone capable of accessing the broad expanse of publications containing evidence supporting the theory of biological evolution. Johnson and the Discovery Institute appear to be in need of a review of their ethical posture before raising any question in the scientific arena.
Here's the real problem. These disagreements among disciplines are played down by the evolutionists/a-theists because they have an agenda. What this says is that they are not willing to consider anything else as an alternative UNLESS it meets THEIR criteria for an alternative. Why? Because with any competition, evolution does not pass muster. And, any findings they make must be presented as they wish. Example? Design. No, science dare not admit to any design, they must relabel it to fit their false "theory", which they always explain is not understood by the public. i.e. I say theory, you say theory, but your theory isn't my theory, you just don't understand the word theory as we do.
OK, design. "As we saw, the very concept of evolution yields the prediction that a GRAND PATTERN of similarity, through a complex set of nested groups arranged in hierarchical fashion, MUST in the end embrace absolutely EVERY FORM of life known to exist -- or to have existed in the past. And we saw that this prediction is ABUNDANTLY verified by biological experience." I.e. Don't you dare call design design. No, you must call it a "grand pattern". Niles Eldredge. Science "so-called"?
In theory, a great idea; in practice totally absurd. The "strengths and weaknesses" of science is such an extremely philosophically deep subject that not many scientists themselves, let alone schoolteachers, and never mind highschool kids, could ever do justice to it, as I have learned over time from deep late-night discussions that have at times included all three. It's easy to see that an idea like that must come from a quarter that doesn't even really know what science is, let alone its "strengths and weaknesses."
And there are believers who actually believe it
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html
and
http://www.fixedearth.com/
which bills itself as "The non-moving Earth & anti-evolution web page"
The Bible doesn't have anything to say about gravity, but it has plenty to say about a fixed Earth that doesn't travel around anything.
I think that the Discovery Institute and open creationists would be on firmer ground demanding that schools "teach the controversy" about geocentrism..
Or that it's not. The Bible doesn't say anything about how big the earth is compared to the universe, or where it's located. The ancient and medieval cosmology -- which was from Aristotle and Ptolemy but accepted by Christians -- held that the universe is larger than we can imagine and the earth should be considered infinitely small within it. Regarding geocentrism, Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology did teach that the earth was at the center of the universe. It also taught that the center was the least prestigious place, since it was furthest removed from Aristotle's Prime Mover on the outside. This is why hell was at the center of the earth and Satan at the center of hell. So the earth was thought to be (almost) the least important place, and its inhabitants (almost) the least important entities.
http://agentintellect.blogspot.com/2009/04/size-doesnt-matter-part-2.html
http://agentintellect.blogspot.com/2009/08/size-doesnt-matter-part-3.html
I am not sure how creationist can explain the lack of evidence of fossilized rodents, except to deny the existence of the Precambrian period. Which would be astonishing.
Did you choose the natural color of your hair or skin?
Did you choose your own innate intellect or was it bestowed or burdened upon you?
Did you choose the time and place in the universe in which you were conceived?
Did your mother have a choice in any of the three previous questions regarding herself?
Did any one of your ancestors have a choice in regards to themself and any of the first three questions?
I didn't think so, you were destined to answer no to those questions.
Why is it that the safest place for God to reside is within the confines of uncertainty?
"How do we know God was not a scientist on the other side of the timeline and actually created the BB?"
That was originally posed as a question. I did not say God does reside there, it was merly a "what if" question. I suspect you were assuming I believe it is true.
Creationists are confused as to the difference between a scientific theory and a prejudice. They are also confused as to the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a rhetorical premise. That the earth was created in six twenty four days 6,000 years ago has been falsified scientifically. That species were created by God, individually, is another problem, but i can't imagine that any thinking theist would believe in a God that would create every species from scratch when the basic biological building blocks for the next species is right there in the creation lab.
There is still one problem within creationism. Why do young earth creationists get along with old earth creationists? Somebody's not being rigorous in their search for truth.
Unfortunately nothing in science can prove any of these theories to be 'true' facts, and it doesn't claim to do so.
All science can do is to say, "If I run this experiment, with this set of base assumptions, I (and anyone who cares to replicate my experiment) always get this outcome. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge through this process, I think that such and so is true."
The world could still be only 4000 years old, as the nutcases claim, and,, therefore, what we see as reality could all be a joke perpetrated by God (an old white guy with a big beard and shepard's staff, for some dumb reason, sitting on his golden throne, suspended on a cloud top - don't ask how that cloud can support all that gold). Science can't disprove that. And doesn't really try.
A big part of the problem with the nutcases is that they don't want to question (or maybe, even, can't question) for fear of being confused.
Being confused implies that your particular model of reality isn't working, and your confusion is the symptom of your comprehension of this.
If your model of reality breaks down, then you are insane. So protecting your model of reality is the number one top priority of every human being. Some have a bigger problem than others in adapting their particular model of reality to changes implied by incoming data. So denial is a defense mechanism, ultimately, against insanity.
Unfortunately, after denial takes you down that particular path too far, your model of reality becomes so far separated from actual reality that you can no longer function. So, in either case you become insane.
Conclusion: If you can't adapt your model of reality to the implications of new data, you will become insane, i.e., you cannot function in the real world. And that applies to every one of us.
The other reason they aren't interested is much more simplistic. If you've got anything in your hand right now, let go of it. (Please not if its a hot cup of joe or tea or your kid!) You've just experienced the action of gravity and proven its existence. Although there's plenty of evidence for evolution and some researchers have "seen" it happen, the vast majority of folks have no firsthand knowledge that its happening, and so its easy to say it doesn't exist.
Most likely because gravity doesn't necessarily interfere with intelligent design or creationism.
Fav'd for writing a good post.
Furthermore, the salvation story is based on "original sin", which in turn is based on a literal interpretation of creation in genesis. Without that, there is no "original sin" and no need for jesus to "save" us from anything.
It is clear from evolution that we are part of the ecosystem - we are mammals, similar in DNA to many other species. We are not qualitatively different, we just have a more complex brain that allows us to be self-aware. The idea that we are the pinnacle of creation, made in the "image of god", or that the world was made for our benefit, is ridiculous when placed into a scientific worldview. In addition, if you accept evolution, the idea of a soul becomes problematic as well. At what point in our evolution were we worthy of such a thing, and why would god arbitarily choose this one species to have one (with the possibility of eternal life if we subscribe to the correct dogma)?
One more thing. Christianity, in particular, promotes the concept of "perfection" in order to get to heaven. Nothing in the natural world is perfect - everything is a balance of yin and yang, good & bad, etc. Perfection is an unnatural state, and the concept that we must be perfect to avoid eternal damnation is a very destructive view. We need to accept that we are part of the natural world, and embrace our imperfections while striving toward our potential. Perfectionism is a simplistic black & white concept.