Are People Losing Faith In Science If They Reject Evolution?

Alan Boyle writes in his column, “An analysis of 36 years’ worth of polling data indicates that confidence in science as an institution has steadily declined among Americans who consider themselves conservatives, while confidence levels have been at steadier levels for other ideological groups.”

For one thing, the Darwinian paradigm is harmful concerning the practice of the scientific method.  Look at these particular studies which say, “confidence in science” has been falling among conservatives what they really mean is confidence in “evolution” has been falling. I don’t think confidence in such things as computer science, or adult stem cell research, or cancer research or space exploration, or learning about designs in nature is falling among conservatives because it’s independent of evolution.

In fact, Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School said this…

“…over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

Journal, BioEssays also commented on this…

“The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority [of] biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensible unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

Professor G.A. Kerkut, an evolutionist and physiologist of Southampton University, challenged students to try to come up with various arguments against evolution but most could not. Then Kerkut told his students that was a deficiency, because if you “really understand an argument you will be able to indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but also the most telling points against it.” Conversely, a student who “repeats parrot fashion the views of the current Archbishop of Evolution” is really “behaving like certain of those religious students he affects to despise.”

Would you say, Kerkut was in favor of following scientific consensus like some people following a cult? I would say he had more of a balanced view on how evolution should be taught than what we see today.  There is no evidence that dead chemicals can turn into a living cell outside the body. There is no evidence that apes can turn into man, there is no evidence a Fruit Fly can mutate into another species! Most evolutionary scientists would fight Kerkut’s method of teaching evolution because they fear that the weaknesses in the Darwinian paradigm would cause students to reject it or loose faith in it.

In 2010 Global Atheist Convention will be held in Melbourne, Australia, Dawkins refused to debate a creationist, claiming it was a sworn oath of his. Generally, they use straw man versions of creation some of which are outdated, rather than address arguments presented by informed creation scientists or other creationists.

So the question remains, are people loosing their faith in science? The answer is of course, no! There is a lot of science to be confident in. However, they are loosing more faith in evolution because there is more confirmation in science about creationism than ever before!

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Are People Losing Faith In Science If They Reject Evolution?

  1. Michael, science is not about faith.
    Your last sentence fails on two accounts: evolution is not something you have faith in (science does not work that way !), and it (of course) has overwhelming evidence in its favour.

    Creationisms is all about faith, of course, and nothing else. It is a religious idea.

  2. In fact, Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School said this…

    “…over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

    This quote, taken entirely out of context, is so misleading that it qualifies as a LIE.

    What is the context of this statement? Marc Kirschner is a leader in introducing evolutionary science into medical school curricula. At present, most medical schools include no explicit courses or significant material on evolut6ion. Yet it is becoming more and more relevant to the practice of medicine, as well as to medical research. These days, cancer is viewed as an evolutionary disease—it arose with multicellular animals, and represents evolutionary mechanisms gone awry within a single organism. Stem-cell research is actually a specialized branch of the evolutionary development (“evo-devo”) field

    So what Michael touts here as making evolution unnecessary is actually an argument that it is more central to medicine than thought. But then creationists live on misleading quotes.

    “The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority [of] biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensible [sic] unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

    This is from A.S. Wilkins in BioEssays 22:1051-52 (2000). But Mi9chael quotes it from a creationist source, not from the original paper. The paper was a plea to make evolution more a central topic in all areas of biological research and education. That is, giving evolution its proper place as a unifying principle leads to insights into molecular biology, developmental biology, medicine, and so on.

    So once again Michael has misrepresented a statement to the point where it become a LIE. Creationists have such a rep for doing this that one can safely assume ab initio that anything a creationist quotes will actually have an opposite meaning. Being biblical literalists, they come by this skill naturally. Since they cannot interpret the Bible’s words, they must bend and twist passages to make them conform to their pre-existing beliefs. So they even quote-mine the Bible. Sad.

    Then Kerkut told his students that was a deficiency, because if you “really understand an argument you will be able to indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but also the most telling points against it.”

    Michael, you know how I enjoy posing little tests. This one is serious. If you can’t answer this one, then you really have no idea whereof you rant. Here it is: I challenge you to come up with valid arguments that heliocentrism is wrong, that in fact the earth is fixed and the planets rotate around it.

    Prof Kerkut may not find many students who could not pass his test, but there are researchers in the field today who are searching for possible life forms that do not share a common ancestry with everything else. Many controversies exist within the field as to the strength or even the existence of evolutionary forces (viz “group selection”). Both you and Kerkut are wrong.

    Once again, Michael shoots himself in the foot. Statements that he proffers as evidence that evolution is superfluous are actually evidence that evolution is more important than had been realized. This is what we mean when we say that Michael LIES about science in order to shore up his beliefs.

  3. Sorry. My bad this time. So I’ll inflict that comment on you again
    ————————————————————————————-

    In fact, Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School said this…

    “…over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

    This quote, taken entirely out of context, is so misleading that it qualifies as a LIE.

    What is the context of this statement? Marc Kirschner is a leader in introducing evolutionary science into medical school curricula. At present, most medical schools include no explicit courses or significant material on evolut6ion. Yet it is becoming more and more relevant to the practice of medicine, as well as to medical research. These days, cancer is viewed as an evolutionary disease—it arose with multicellular animals, and represents evolutionary mechanisms gone awry within a single organism. Stem-cell research is actually a specialized branch of the evolutionary development (“evo-devo”) field

    What Michael touts here as making evolution unnecessary is actually an argument that it is more central to medicine than thought. But then creationists live on misleading quotes.

    “The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority [of] biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensible [sic] unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

    This is from A.S. Wilkins in BioEssays 22:1051-52 (2000). But Mi9chael quotes it from a creationist source, not from the original paper. The paper was a plea to make evolution more a central topic in all areas of biological research and education. That is, giving evolution its proper place as a unifying principle leads to insights into molecular biology, developmental biology, medicine, and so on.

    So once again Michael has misrepresented a statement to the point where it become a LIE. Creationists have such a rep for doing this that one can safely assume ab initio that anything a creationist quotes will actually have an opposite meaning. Being biblical literalists, they come by this skill naturally. Since they cannot interpret the Bible’s words, they must bend and twist passages to make them conform to their pre-existing beliefs. So they even quote-mine the Bible. Sad.

    Then Kerkut told his students that was a deficiency, because if you “really understand an argument you will be able to indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but also the most telling points against it.”

    Michael, you know how I enjoy posing little tests. This one is serious. If you can’t answer this one, then you really have no idea whereof you rant. Here it is: I challenge you to come up with valid arguments that heliocentrism is wrong, that in fact the earth is fixed and the planets rotate around it.

    Prof Kerkut may not find many students who could not pass his test, but there are researchers in the field today who are searching for possible life forms that do not share a common ancestry with everything else. Many controversies exist within the field as to the strength or even the existence of evolutionary forces (viz “group selection”). Both you and Kerkut are wrong.

    Once again, Michael shoots himself in the foot. Statements that he proffers as evidence that evolution is superfluous aree actually evidence that evolution is more important than had been realized. This is what we mean when we say that Michael LIES about science in order to shore up his beliefs.

  4. The full text of Wilkins’ BioEssays apaper is available online here.So unsuspecting readers can see for themselves how Michael distorts its meaning with his mendacious exercise in quote-mining.

  5. . . . . . . . . . . . .Are People Losing Faith In Science If They Reject Evolution?

    It depends upon what they expect from science. If they expect it merely to confirm what they already think, then they may well be disappointed. If they expect instant cures for the ills of mankind, then they will surely be disappointed. If they expect absolute, finl knowledge, then they will be disappointed.

    But here’s a slight change that can produce an unequivocal answer—

    . . . . . . . . . . . .Are People Denying Science If They Reject Evolution?

    YES!

    .

    Michael, the body of this post has nothing to do with its title. You attempt to show—falsely—that some scientists may consider evolution as superfluous. In what way dfoes that imply that they might “lose fith” in science?

    Total disconnect.

  6. Olorin,

    You say,“What is the context of this statement? Marc Kirschner is a leader in introducing evolutionary science into medical school curricula. At present, most medical schools include no explicit courses or significant material on evolut6ion. Yet it is becoming more and more relevant to the practice of medicine, as well as to medical research. These days, cancer is viewed as an evolutionary disease—it arose with multicellular animals, and represents evolutionary mechanisms gone awry within a single organism. Stem-cell research is actually a specialized branch of the evolutionary development (“evo-devo”) field.”

    When you call it “an evolutionary disease” how does this become relevant or improve medicine? Medicine is operational science which deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present. Calling it “evolutionary” doesn’t have an impact on operational science which has been very successful in understanding the world, and has led to many improvements in the quality of life. However, evolution deals with speculation about the unobservable past which is not repeatable! Another reason why it’s not in the medical books is because “explicit courses or significant material on evolution” are taught elsewhere in other studies.

  7. When you call it “an evolutionary disease” how does this become relevant or improve medicine? Medicine is operational science which deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present. Calling it “evolutionary” doesn’t have an impact on operational science which has been very successful in understanding the world, and has led to many improvements in the quality of life.

    Micfhael, i don’t know whether you are being obtuse or just plain stupid with this remark.

  8. So the cell’s machinery is capable of conducting calculus operations which clearly comes from intelligence not by a mindless process.

    Now that’s just not true. I asked a number of my own cells to find dy/dx of y=e^x, and none of them had a clue.[1] You couldn’t want an easier calculus problem than that, but they all failed miserably. And my cells are as smart as anybody’s.[2]

    Michael, your statement quoted above may be the stupidest thing you’ve come up with in a long time. It even beats out the one where you called zinc a “complex organic compound.”

    Should we laugh or cry at such benighted claptrap?

    ====================

    [1] Although one of the taste buds could calculate the volume of a cylinder of mozzarella with radius Z and height A. It came up with V=PI*Z*Z*A

    [2] Excepting the residents of the Isles of Langerhans, which long ago forgot how to manufacture insulin, thus requiring its importation at great expense from Novo Nordisk.

  9. Conclusion

    Fact: We exist
    Experiment: First Law of Thermodynamics – Matter can not be created or destroyed
    Conclusion: Cosmic Evolution hypothesis violates all experiments that confirm the First Law of Thermodynamics

    Fact: We are alive
    Experiment: Law of Biogenesis – Life arises only from existing life
    Conclusion: Abiogenesis hypothesis violates all experiments that confirm the Law of Biogenesis

    Fact: We are complicated
    Experiment: Second Law of Thermodynamics – All things tend toward disorder
    Conclusion: Biological Evolution hypothesis violates all experiments that confirm the Second Law of Thermodynamics

    Creation does not violate any of the scientific laws. The natural laws are descriptive and not prescriptive. They describe what we see happening and what we observe on a universal scale, they do not prescribe what has to happen. God is not limited by his creation because he is outside of the creation. Evolution needs God because it can not happen on its own, but God does not need evolution to create the universe. Just as Galileo was stopped for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun creationists are being stopped for saying in the beginning there was a creator. It is unfortunate that many scientists will never give up in their belief in evolution because it means that there is a God, and if there is a God that means we are supposed to do what he wants us to. If you don’t believe the things I have written here I guess there is not much I can do about it but don’t say no one warned you. No one is an atheist forever, just until they die.

  10. Good points, David…The universe is not designed for evolution. Pantheists claim there is no cause nor purpose of the universe. It falls into line with mythical places known as infinite multi-universes. Some scientists over the years have given up in their belief in evolution while others have not. The only reason why the belief in multi-universes even exists is because current models based on its evolution do not match up with the reality of man what knows so far. And the more reality man discovers, the more complicated its explanation becomes thereby showing it’s a false assumption.

    Believing in ant-reality has hindered science, take dark matter for example. They have built a dark matter detector with a vat of 368 kilograms of liquid xenon that is cooled to minus 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Quite impressive piece of equipment and very expensive. This is claimed to be the best detector know built so far. However, according to a report in the NY Times last October 2013, no particles that according to theorists, are wafting through space, the galaxy, the Earth and even ourselves, have been detected. And they are going to crank up the sensitivity even more. This is also claimed to be their cleanest signal yet…lol Since they don’t really know anything about the properties, how can they build any machines that can detect it. It is like saying a person from the 16 century would eventually be able gather information from a crime scene such as DNA that would identify the criminal without knowledge of technology of today. They have been looking for dark matter for 25 years now and most likely will spend billions in the future trying to find it. This has prompted the likes of Caroll to embrace anti-realism.

  11. That’s a large hole in your knowledge of basic physics, David.

    “Matter can not be created or destroyed”

    Of course it can … never heard of particle physics ? The not-so-unknown E=mc^2 ?
    Matter is just a form of energy …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s