Recently, Dr Pepper posted a picture to its Facebook page showing a mock evolution graphic -- a "pre-Pepper" chimp morphing into an upright "post-Pepper" human. There are many such humorous adaptations of this classic monkey-to-man "march of progress" graphic, and the Mad Men working for Dr Pepper probably had no reason to think that their ad would elicit unusual controversy.
Wrong. Immediately after its posting, enraged commenters descended upon the site, ranting against Dr Pepper's tacit endorsement of well-established science taught in every high school biology classroom. Some of their proclamations:
"Well, there goes my support for this company."
"I ain't no freaking chimp. No more Dr Pepper for my household."
"This is showing the theory of men evolving from apes. I have lost all respect for Dr Pepper and if Dr Pepper wants business from thousands of people they will need to apologize."
And this ominous observation: "Dr. Pepper wasn't served until 1885... 3 years AFTER the death of Darwin! Sounds like a conspiracy if you asked me!"
Evolution should not -- in the year 2012, after a century and a half of scientific verification from multiple independent lines of evidence -- be the subject of controversy. Historians of science note that among the community of practicing scientists, serious doubts about evolution faded by the 1870s.
And yet in the United States and a handful of other countries, the topic of evolution provokes a fierce, emotional response from some sectors. This social (not scientific) controversy is especially true when human evolution is taught in public schools. For example, the 1925 Butler Act -- the law under which John Scopes was tried and convicted -- did not technically ban evolution wholesale but criminalized teaching "that man has descended from a lower order of animals." The Tennessee legislature of the 1920s simply was unwilling to accept the reality of common descent with modification for all organisms, including humans, from earlier ancestors.
And there hasn't been a lot of progress since. Science communicator Bill Nye, the "Science Guy," recently found out just how controversial talking about evolution can be.
When Nye released a short video in which he made some common-sense statements about creationism and evolution, there was no reason to think it would become especially viral. Nye remarked that the denial of evolution is uniquely prevalent in the United States. He explained, correctly, that the theory of evolution is as fundamental to the life sciences as the theory of plate tectonics is to the earth sciences. Nye also linked acceptance of evolution with basic science literacy, connecting the denial of science with future economic problems, noting, "I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution ... that's fine, but don't make your kids do it, because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future ... We need engineers [who] can build stuff, solve problems."
As Nye's video went viral, racking up over 4.7 million views at the time of this writing, media outlets descended on this story as if they had never heard of a conflict between creationism and science:
"Bill Nye on creationism: It's like teaching the earth is flat"
"Bill Nye anti-creationism debate explodes"
"Bill Nye the Science Guy: Parents, do not teach creationism"
We at the National Center for Science Education -- a nonprofit organization that Bill Nye supports -- know that controversy over the teaching of evolution is hardly new. In our decades of defending the teaching of evolution in public schools, we have observed the same creationist arguments -- some dating from the time of the Scopes trial -- recycled over and over, retooled into newer, spiffier forms, such as "scientific creationism" or "intelligent design" or "academic freedom," but at the core sharing the same grotesque assumptions about science.
Nye's video spoke to many viewers because he clearly and unapologetically called out creationism as the nonsense it is. Nye's great skill as a science communicator is to cut to the core of something and express its essence. Here, creationism isn't simply an "alternative" to evolution; creationism involves such a degree of irrationality that teaching creationism could actually be harmful to the developing minds of children.
Predictably, the creationists responded. Answers in Genesis (AiG) is one of the best-funded creationist ministries, operating the multi-million-dollar Creation Museum in Kentucky, with plans to construct a life-sized Noah's Ark. AiG has a long history of attacking Nye, mockingly awarding him their 2010 "Humanist of the Year" award, and publishing articles such as "Bill Nye's Crusade for Your Kids."
AiG released videos attacking Nye, with its president, Ken Ham, declaring that Nye "doesn't really understand science," and instead promotes "an agenda to teach children not to believe in God." The real problem, according to Ham, is "people like Bill Nye [who] are damaging kids" by promoting evolution.
How could teaching evolution be damaging? AiG thinks learning evolution makes children default to murderous behavior; one of their billboards, unveiled in 2009, showed a kid pointing a gun toward the viewer with the caption, "If God doesn't matter to him, do you?" (Just imagine what such dissolute kids might do if they were chugging cans of Dr Pepper as they learned biology.)
Another AiG piece on Nye warned that he is "out to get your kids for evolution," adding:
I recall watching his program about dinosaurs with my children. In it he and his assistant repeatedly declared that dinosaurs did not live at the same time as people. Yet God reported in Genesis that He created all kinds of land animals on the same day He created Adam and Eve, and dinosaurs were land animals. Who are we to believe, Bill Nye... or God...?
You can't argue with that kind of... um... reasoning.
What we can do is work toward the day when American schoolchildren are taught evolution in the same way as any other well-established scientific idea, without caveats or apologies. With evolution at the center of biology, and thus important to the success of medicine, biotechnology, and agriculture, we can't afford to keep it bottled up or to kick the can.
Also, people need to realize that neither creationism or common ancestry are in any way a fact, and both have giant flaws in their reasoning, and none have very substantial proof to back up their claims without resorting to a bunch of circular reasoning.
Both believe the other is out to indoctrinate children, and both sides are fighting a frivolous, pointless, meaningless debate that no matter who is right would change nothing.
What is wrong with simply saying "I don't know and probably never will?" People need to learn to accept that there may be things beyond the knowledge of man. At least for now...
The second and more serious problem is that the "I don't know and probably never will" mentality so wrong that I cannot find words to describe it.
It's denying human nature. It's holding back progress.
Let's just imagine that during the second world war, when asked how to break the enigma machine Alan Turing said "I don't know and probably never will", the nazis would have probably lost the war anyway but it would have lasted many more years at the cost of millions of lives.
Let's imagine that while looking at the planets Newton wondered "Can the movements of the planets be described mathematically?" and then though "I don't know and probably never will". Principia Mathematica ("Widely regarded as one of the most important works in both the science of physics and in applied mathematics[...]") would never exist.
I can carry on.
So you ask: «What is wrong with simply saying "I don't know and probably never will?"»
I say: EVERYTHING!
Saying "I don't know" or "I have yet to have all the answers to this question" or even "I cannot yet draw a conclusion from the evidence at hand" does not hinder anything.
Newton and Turing took the evidence they had at hand and formed a conclusion they thought was accurate, that is what makes science progress. They had an eye for mathematics, and used that to form a conclusion that turned out to be accurate through numerous testing and repetitive usage. If one has advanced knowledge in a subject and wants to try to solve an conundrum, so be it. They know the subject a lot more than you or I do.
(cont...)
In the form of Common Ancestry vs Creationism, one simply cannot "repeat" Common Ancestry, the Big Bang, or the existence of a creator, in a laboratory. And many cannot form a liable conclusion based only on the facts at hand, and I am not afraid to say "I don't have all the answers." And I am not ignorant enough to believe that saying so would hinder advancement of the human race.
Especially us commoners who really don't have any advanced education in the subject, should not go into raging debates with other people over what is right or wrong on the issue. Us commoners saying "I don't know" would probably promote progress, not hinder it.
I am not an evolutionary biologist, an astrophysicist, a mathematician, etc, and I don't pretend to be as smart as one. So I quite gladly reply to the origins debate with an "I don't know" and promote other people to do so as well.
flexibility, a nod in these public debates and commentaries to those perfectly intelligent Americans who happen to believe that God's existence is not dependent on whether or not evolution is real; science and God can quite happily co-exist. Our knowledge of either hard science or the spiritual/religious realm is far from static; we continue to learn and evolve. To be certain that one is pure truth and must cancel out the other, without exception, is pure arrogance.
Great Book!
I am very disapointed by the NAS info on the topic of evolution. For an evidence based institution their so called "evidence" proving Darwinian/Macro evolution is weak indeed.
It is mostly sciency sounding gibberish that is satisfying only to the superficial evolutionists and not at all satisfying to the critical thinkers.
People interested in learning about macroevolution can go to Science.gov (1) then type into their search engine *macroevolution*.
EXPLORE, learn, and have fun! May you have a great day.:)
1. http://www.science.gov
THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES
BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION
THE DESSCENT OF MAN
AND SELECTION IN RELATION TO SEX
BY CHARLES DARWIN
GREAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD
Robert Maynard Hutchins, Editor in Chief
[Volume] 49.
DARWIN
William Benton, Publisher
1952
by ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, INC.
Twenty-Eighth Printing, 1986
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 55-10355
International Standard Book Number: 0-85229-163-9
Steve, thanks for your continued help.
In my mind, we are a more advanced species to set up societies to care about others when there is no heaven or hell to provide the motivation. - maybe we are on a par with ants and bees . . .
Teaching children nonsense for an easy life is a poor kind of education.
There is no evidence for a god, it's not scientific, and adding god to the explanation for evolution is not needed.
Evolution is the only thing needed to be taught in school, in terms of science.
The statement "Historians of science note that among the community of practicing scientists, serious doubts about evolution faded by the 1870s." is provable wrong.
There is significant dissent from Darwinism. For proof of the dissent to go http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ and download the list of brave scientists who are willing to publicly declare their dissent from Darwinian/Macro evolution. Micro Evolution is observable science, Darwinian/Macro evolution is a fairytale supported only by propaganda.
Further there is no attemp made to define the key term.
“Evolution” is a vague word. The main defintions in the text books are:
1) "change over time", this is silly as it is stating the flaming obvious.
2) Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.
3) Darwinian/Macro evolution (where the conflict is) which asserts that:
a) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
b) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
“The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false,
you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
~~~Of course you do...
"There is significant dissent from Darwinism. For proof of the dissent to go http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/"
~~~~This is an ulimately meaningless list. Go to the NCSE's list of Steve's [http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve]. This is tongue in cheek response to Dissent From Darwin but has a very serious point too. There are about 880 people listed on Dissent from Darwin (estimating 44 names per page and 20 pages). There's over 1200 scientists named Steve (or a derivative thereof, i.e. Steven) who signed in support of Darwin. Furthermore, 880 scientists makes up less than a fraction of 1% of scientists around the world. In short, Dissent From Darwin is meaningless.
Finally, if any of these people had any real evidence, then why don't they publish it? Oh right, I forgot. There's a global conspiracy to keep evolution true. A conspiracy so pervasive that every major university is in on it, yet so simply that someone like yourself, with no science education, can figure it out. Yeah...riiight.
Although that's technically correct, I would have said something like "a minute fraction". There are many millions of scientists; 880 is spit in the ocean. It's a rounding error.
No, it doesn't rise to the level of a rounding error. :)
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?
~Epicurus
Athiests.... Winning since 33 C.E.