The Angry Evolutionist

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140

by amichail • 17 years ago

43 79 17 years ago

>It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing.

Sigh. This depresses me more than anything else about the creationists I've met: the stubborn, aggressive, unapologetic ignorance in which they happily cloak themselves.

callmeed• 17 years ago

Trust me, it depresses some creationists too.

netsp8• 17 years ago

Which ones?

dasil0033• 17 years ago

This also reminds me of a steady trend in politics over the last 40 years. Increased partisanship has led to more and more politicians and even supposed journalists resorting to mining sound bites and even in some cases completely fabricating attacks just to bring the other side down and prevent them from accomplishing anything. The way the talk radio hosts and other right wing extremists control large swaths of the population with blatant lies is horrifying. The really disturbing thing is the intractability of this sort of willful ignorance.

chrischen9• 17 years ago

>It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing.

Those who oppose evolution do so because they want to, not because they haven't been enlightened. People extend faith into God because they want to, not because all evidence suggests he exists.

They may learn it, but they'll probably still oppose it.

amichail5• 17 years ago

While evolution is true, it doesn't explain the most interesting aspects of life -- namely, consciousness and (apparent) free will.

This is an enormous gap in understanding and it would be nice if Dawkins were to acknowledge this more in his talks. Evolution doesn't really explain life.

emmett• 17 years ago

Yet.

jsankey• 17 years ago

Bingo. Science doesn't have all the answers: but it can admit when it doesn't (contrast with faith). Dawkins does speak of consciousness in his work, and admits to not having a full explanation. Criticising what has been explained so far on the basis that we don't yet know everything is analogous to pointing out gaps in the fossil record.

nobody_nowhere• 17 years ago

Isn't that like saying "while e=mc^2 is true, it doesn't explain music"?

netsp8• 17 years ago

Yes. It is very similar, but a little worse because evolution does play an role in understanding interesting aspects of life like art, morality and love.

netsp8• 17 years ago

This is just silly belittling. It doesn't really mean anything. What do you mean by "life?" It doesn't tell you what you should do with it?

The reason evolution ever became such a important part of atheism is because it weakens the historically strongest argument for believing in god: The 'How could all this just happen?' question. Evolution gives you a good answer to the most common version of that question (the flowers and the trees and the deer and you, little Janet). It's still in use with the beginning of life of physics or other things as an illustration, but the most powerful example is now gone. Also, it gives you a clue that many such processes exist.

unalone• 17 years ago

Perhaps life has no explanation. Perhaps the fact that every person who tries to understand life reaches a different "answer" implies that life is life to be life, and that any other meaning is personal in nature.

Evolution is describing something objective—it describes how something happens. You're looking for the subjective realm of philosophy.

amichail5• 17 years ago

Consciousness is a real phenomenon. Although it is a subjective experience, the fact that it exists is entirely objective.

netsp8• 17 years ago

I object to your definition of philosophy. Evolution is first and foremost an philosophical concept. It is just biology to the extent that the evolution of life happens to beautifully demonstrate it.

jswinghammer7• 17 years ago

I always wonder why people care so much about this. There isn't a good reason why this would ever matter to someone. If your case is strong make it and move on. Most people don't have sufficient background in science to understand much of physics or math these days but no one really gets mad about that. The truth is the truth and it settles itself in the end. I'm yet to hear of a single chair of a biology department of any major university who doesn't agree with contemporary evolutionary theory and people in the US have doubted evolution since it was first introduced. There isn't some looming threat to science and no one needs to get so upset about this.

I'm a follower of Jesus who believes in angels but I don't have a super strong belief about evolution either way. I'll probably teach evolution to my kids who I plan on homeschooling and encourage them to consider how this might fit with a world view that includes God. Believing or not believing in evolution is just not a central issue to most people following Jesus. I've never met anyone who this is a big issue for. I guess they're out there but it's never really seemed like this massive issue for people.

amichail5• 17 years ago

Evolution and Christianity are in conflict in the sense that it is possible but unlikely that evolution went through a bottleneck where Adam and Eve were the first two humans and all other humans are their descendents. This makes the concept of original sin problematic -- and thus introduces a problem with Christianity.

jswinghammer7• 17 years ago

Unless that's not a literal description but rather a story that demonstrates that our parents rebelled against God and now we're under their curse.

jmtulloss3• 17 years ago

I disagree that evolution and Christianity, as broad concepts, are in conflict. The whole Adam and Eve thing is (obviously, to those that look at science as providing facts) not to be taken at face value. Original sin is not a central theme to many if not most Christian sects, and it's not exactly necessary in those sects where it does play a role.

Christianity was invented by men, so certainly every flavor got a few things wrong. It's when people on either side are unwilling to admit that there might be flaws in their own thinking that we get these poisonous and unproductive debates.

chrischen9• 17 years ago

I too disagree. Christianity is open up to interpretation and can be mangled to fit anything.

dasil0033• 17 years ago

The reason academics care about it is because a tiny minority of right-wing extremists has made it their raison d'etre and actually made enough noise about it that journalists have given it far more ink than it is worth and some sizable chunk of people now actually believe there is something debatable there. The interesting question is why that lunatic fringe cares about it so much. If you want to get literal and selective with the bible there are any number of modern memes, theories, practices and policies to attack, most of which would have more practical value as a target than evolution.

jswinghammer7• 17 years ago

Couldn't agree more.

Adam503• 17 years ago

The REALLY depressing part is it's NOT a "tiny minority." In 2005, Gallup has had as many as 53% of American surveyed claim they are creationists.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/american-beliefs-evolution-...

jballanc6• 17 years ago

(Disclaimer: I'm reading HN because I'm procrastinating work on my Ph.D. thesis...on an evolutionary model ;-)

There isn't a good reason why this would ever matter to someone.

How's this for a reason why it should matter: You pay taxes, as do your neighbors. When you pay those taxes, you expect them to pay for things you feel are worth while. You also vote, and you will probably vote for people who you are confident will steer those tax dollars to projects you feel are worth while.

I'm a scientist (or at least, I am for now...I don't think I'll be able to make a living at it for much longer. I'll have to get a "real" job). Most of the research I do is funded, directly or indirectly, by tax dollars. When the people who value evolution and an understanding of the biological world had their way, a lot of money was steered toward funding that sort of research. Then, people who didn't accept evolution came into power. They steered money away from this sort of research, and into fighting wars of aggression. For nearly the past decade, funding has remained flat (after doubling in the preceding 5 years...a rate which was probably too fast, but that's a whole 'nother story).

Why would you care about my research? Well, I research evolution. Specifically, I'm interested in how to determine what factors will function as selective pressures a priori. Why is that important? Remember last April when OMG SWINE FLU!!!1!!11 Do you remember the pundits and professors and learned people of all sorts that got on the TV and the radio? Do you remember the hosts of all those show asking: Now what? How bad? And do you remember that nobody could give a straight answer?

You know why they couldn't give a straight answer? It's not so much because the don't know why the flu might be more or less severe. There's been a lot of research into that lately, and we have a good idea what mutations might make the flu a killer, and which are mostly harmless. No, the reason they couldn't give you a straight answer is because which of those mutations would be acquired, and in what proportions, depends on evolution, on selective pressures...and we can't predetermine what those selective pressures will be! Maybe we could, if you'd be ok giving some tax dollars to fund evolution research, or at least vote for people who would be ok with that.

Oh, and for the entrepreneurs that will predictably say that I shouldn't rely on the government for funding, and that I should instead count on the private sector? Here's the deal I'll offer you (and I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better offer): I give you a 5% probability that the research I will do in the next, say, 40 years, at a cost of only $15mil a year, will lead to being better able to predict where the next pandemic might occur. Would you fund me? Or, more importantly, could you find a government that would allow us to keep that information as a trade secret until the original investment of $600mil (adjusted for 40 years of inflation, of course) was recouped?

/rant phew...now about that thesis...

rv77ax4• 17 years ago

(^ that was the longest comment i ever read on HN)

there is one thing that i don't understand about evolution.

if evolution is true than human, bear, elephant, and any-big-animal-that-exist-today-except-whale should be the "biggest" thing that happened today, after evolving. but, why there is exist monstrous animal like t-Rex, whale, mammoth, etc. ?

EDIT: for anyone who could not see my face when typing this, "that was the longest comment i ever read on HN" is a compliment, not a sarcasm.

izg• 17 years ago

@jballanc as i procrastinate myself, allow me to tell you your comment was not a waste of time. i thoroughly enjoyed it and it addressed a very significant problem under the previous administration which has and will continue to have major repercussions, not just within the scientific community.

jswinghammer7• 17 years ago

While I respect the work you're doing I reject the premise that I want my tax dollars to go to anything. I don't want the government funding research at all. Most government research goes to defense research anyway so even if non-defense research is helpful I'd rather throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak.

Most work needs to be profitable to happen or it's done by people who just work in their spare time. That's been a consistent part of progress for a long time now.

I don't need to have an opinion about evolution to not want the government to fund research.

Confusion• 17 years ago

People care because the anti-evolutionary forces are hurting scientific progress and the technological advances that usually accompany them. If an honest research proposal needs to include the word 'evolution', but you can't use that, because it would reduce your changes of getting funding, then something is seriously wrong.

jswinghammer7• 17 years ago

I don't want the government to fund research at all so if that's what you're referring to then it's probably not going to convince me much here.

I guess if they are screening for the word evolution then that's pretty dumb though. I have a hard time believing that's still the case since Bush left office.

chrischen9• 17 years ago

I once worked for a PhD student in entomology (nematology) who did not believe in evolution. She was a devout Christian and rationalized the adaptiveness of organisms as microevolution and claimed that any long term large scale change is unlikely/impossible. Btw she got her doctorate.

jswinghammer7• 17 years ago

So a woman who studies worms doesn't believe that macro-evolution is impossible. She worked hard and got her degree. I don't see a crisis here.

brisance• 17 years ago

The fact that we share so much of our genetic code with other animals shows that we are linked in some way.

amichail5• 17 years ago

This doesn't follow since in a creationist view it is possible that the more similar the animals, the more similar their DNA.

However, one can make a very strong argument for evolution by looking at non-functional parts of DNA. For example, our DNA contains a program for producing vitamin C but it doesn't work. A similar program in other animals does work.

ash• 17 years ago

Interesting - I haven't heard about non-functional vitamin C-producing program before... Could you point to an article/book with some details about it?

JBiserkov• 17 years ago

or that God knew all about code reuse...

jmtulloss3• 17 years ago

We certainly could learn a lot about robust software design from studying how biological systems work.

modelic3• 17 years ago

Dawkins is awesome. The man cares enough to educate and debunk myths. I wish all academics had such passion and devotions to their craft.

chrischen9• 17 years ago

Believing in angels and believing in evolution evolution are not mutually exclusive. The statement is misleading. Most people believe in evolution, not creationism. Those who do believe in creationism have detached themselves from logic and reality, so there's no point in arguing with them.

davidw• 17 years ago

This is one of those debates/issues that is not going to be solved on HN, is more likely to generate heat than light, and thus is probably more appropriate for some other forum.

chrischen9• 17 years ago

I don't even understand why this topic is generating contention. I mean it's about the veracity of evolution! In a forum filled with noninsane people!

thismat• 17 years ago

I agree, this has nothing to do with hackernews and is only serving to isolate people.

jonny_noog• 17 years ago

To be clear, I am squarely on Dawkins's side, I am not a Creationist, or a follower of any religion. What Dawkins is saying makes perfect sense to me. Having said that, I have often found it curious the number of times I have seen Dawkins interviewed or read his writings, he does tend to talk down to his foes or use a rather snide style. I can totally understand that he must be very frustrated by now that the completely logical position he has championed for so long garners a surprising amount of rejection in certain circles.

However, if he truly feels that "It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing." he might do well to take a different tone in his writings.

If however, he is really just preaching to the converted, then this would likely explain the tone that he often seems to take.

lazyant• 17 years ago

I've read this calling Dawkins 'angry' a few times already and the stupid sensationalism bothers me: I've never seen him "angry", neither have I come across a written rant; he's always pretty calm.

giardini• 17 years ago

Derek Bickerton dissects Dawkins (and others) nicely:

http://beyondscienceversusreligion.blogspot.com/2009/09/four...

Bickerton's blog "Beyond science versus religion":

http://beyondscienceversusreligion.blogspot.com/2009/09/miss...

From Bickerton's mission statement:

[He has an] "unwavering commitment to seek out bullshit and destroy it in all of its varying forms and disguises" [shades of the Augean stables!].

"This blog goes beyond the currently escalating struggle between science and religion, seeking new ways to reconcile them ... We'll go fearlessly where neither atheists nor believers have gone, submitting both sides to searching criticism they have not yet received. Earlier posts feature shortcomings of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse--Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett--but then the religious get their turn."

The Angry Evolutionist

Related Stories