By now you may have seen Sunday’s Doonesbury comic strip. If not, high thee to Pharyngula to see how PZ Myers has exactly my same thoughts on it.
I’ve heard many people reflect that we should make it a law that if you are a creationist, you don’t get to use anything developed using the theory/fact of evolution. It’s a funny idea. Too bad it won’t work in practice.
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
December 19th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
While it certainly is ironic, I don’t think it’s funny. I believe there is still a moral obligation to provide proper medical care, even if someone is ignorant or a hypocrit.
CJSF
December 19th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Oh, dear, that strip was precious. Every once in a while, it really hits me how Trudeau hasn’t lost his touch. It seems like only yesterday when he’d been around for twenty-five years, and Bill Watterson was saying that was a quarter of newspaper comics’ entire existence. Now **Calvin and Hobbes** and **The Far Side** have both come out in “complete” editions — my childhood, in boxed sets — and **Doonesbury** just keeps barelling on, cursing at the same old problems in new disguises. . . .
December 19th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Nice one! Reminds me of the time on the strip when a doctor was going to transplant the heart of a liberal into the body of a conservative–until someone asked him how he planned to keep the liberal heart from bleeding in the conservative body…so he had to reconsider.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
Ferro, the decision is ultimately the patient’s. If the patient refuses to accept that the bacteria have evolved, and thus wants to stick to the now-ineffective antibiotics, it is the doctor’s moral and legal responsibility to follow the patient’s wishes. Under US law and medical ethical codes doctors cannot force competent patients to undergo treatment or take drugs they do not want. It is the doctor’s responsibility to explain that the old antibiotics will not work, but if the patient still refuses to accept that then the doctor has no choice but to follow his wishes. I see nothing immoral about what the doctor did. He told the patient what the situation was, told him that the bacteria had evolved and that traditional treatments will not work. Then had the patient make the decision on whether to accept the reality of the situation and follow the proper course of treatment even though it conflicted with his beliefs or deny the situation, stick to his beliefs, and undergo the traditional, now-ineffective therapy. People refuse medical treatment or undergo what are known to be ineffective treatments on religious grounds all the time. That is the proper behavior for dealing with medical treatments that a doctor knows his patient might have objections to on religious grounds (although I doubt many people would consider this particular situation a serious religious issue). Doctors legally must respect patient decisions, whether they agree with them or not.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:04 am
Hmm, yes. So, maybe not with medicines (after all, I would not wish an unpleasant or painful disease on anyone), but maybe other things should be forbidden to anyone who adheres to YEC. The internal combustion engine (thermodynamics is only a theory); radio transmissions (Maxwell’s equations are only a theory) and computers (quantum, erm, is only a theory?) spring to mind.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:08 am
The Dilbert comic strip addressed a similar issue lately.
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20051218.html
December 20th, 2005 at 2:42 am
while they’re at it, they can go back to living in huts
December 20th, 2005 at 5:50 am
Interesting. May I suggest http://www.reasons.org or the book THE CREATOR AND THE COSMOS, 3rd ed. for a look at “creationism” from some folks who do respect science.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:24 am
Doonesbury is humorous. But, why the gross generalization of the term “creationist”, or more apt, “creationism”? Do certain groups really wish to take a shotgun approach toward religion? If most creationists accept science, where’s the battle?
A riffle approach with the cross hairs on YEC is an appropriate target. Don’t let the curtain of their use of the word “creationism” hide them from their wizadry. Pull the curtain back and reveal their falsness; stop Oz from smoking. But, don’t wake up and find out you have wrongly offended all of us in Kansas. Creationism is not anti-science. Some creationism is, call it…..Yectionism, or something, to minimize the collateral damage.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:48 am
Grant, I’d say that the people at http://www.reasons.org have little respect for science. They are just cherry-picking science facts to support their creationist beliefs. Same tired old crap.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:05 am
Come on folks, you all need to be open minded about things. I used to believe in Creationism and only Creationism. I still believe in God, the Devil, Heaven, and Hell, but I also now think that maybe things started with Creationism and have since been allowed to Evolve. (I still don’t think we came from apes though)
Until someone can definitively explain to me what caused the Big Bang (and not just supposition) or what causes everything in the Universe to rotate and revolve, I’ll stick to my beliefs. Just don’t try to push your’s down my throat. It’s like anything else that really can’t be explained…Faith, baby. You have faith in what you want to, I’ll have faith in what I want to.
That said, I still think all the stuff crowding my sky is cool and Astronomy was the coolest class I ever took! Talk about elbow room!
December 20th, 2005 at 8:19 am
There are two types of creation, macro and micro evolution. There is no argument about micro evolution and a lot of variance within spiecies is due to micro evolution, could this be the cause of anti-biotic resistance?
I also heard the argument that anti-biotic resistance was due to “plasmids” floating around.
From my reading of the history of science, science and faith worked together, and then Darwin came along and the two have been estranged ever since.
This need not be the case
“Why can’t we all just get along?”
December 20th, 2005 at 8:55 am
Aren’t micro and macro evolution one and the same? I don’t see how they are different.
And I think that science stopped to rely on religion way before Darwin. Galileo comes to mind, but I’m sure that this happened before Galileo. I think that the friend of Aristotle (forgot his name) that didn’t agree with him could also be included.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:13 am
Darwin/Evolution is but one of many examples throughout history of scientists and religious leaders butting heads. Religion answered many naturalistic questions (eg, what causes lightning) in addition to supernatural ones (eg, why are we here). Science was developed to answer the naturalistic questions, and as it found answers to different ones, it stepped on the toes of religious establishments.
There’s nothing inherently anti-religious about evolution, though there are some who don’t see that. The theory that we developed from lower species is silent on the question of whether there’s a god behind it all. That’s a supernatural question.
So I agree, there’s no need for the religious and scientific communities to be at odds over this question. I don’t see why we can’t get along, either.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:21 am
George Said:
>But, why the gross generalization of the term “creationist�, or more apt, “creationism�? Do certain groups really wish to take a shotgun approach toward religion? If most creationists accept science, where’s the battle?
There seems to be some disagreement on terminology here. When most people see the word “Creationism”, they do not take it to mean a mere belief in God, or a belief that God is the creator of all. Rather, they take it to mean that God directly and magically created the world and humanity out of nothing. Creationism is the label for direct, immediate popping into existence of the world. I suppose this is what you mean when you point to Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and for the most part that is what is being addressed by the term Creationist. Creationism is the term for those who stand opposed to Evolution (or more correctly, the origin and development of the universe and life through naturalistic means).
There are religious people who accept evolution, and naturalism. Calling them “Creationists” because they believe that God is the ultimate cause, and Evolution just one of his methods, is confusing, because that term has traditionally been used for those opposed to Evolution and naturalism. A better term for them is Religious Evolutionist, though that doesn’t easily roll off the tongue.
Perhaps we do need a new term, something to acknowledge this distinction. Somehow YECtionist is a tad cumbersome. Maybe YECist, but then you’ve got that acronym thing going on.
JL Said:
>Until someone can definitively explain to me what caused the Big Bang (and not just supposition) or what causes everything in the Universe to rotate and revolve, I’ll stick to my beliefs.
I can’t address the Big Bang, but the cause of everything in the Universe to rotate and revolve is the combination of attraction and angular momentum. Gravity creates a sense of mutual attraction which pulls things together. Momentum is the quantity of inertia, an object’s resistance to change in motion. Angular Momentum is the curved motion form (vs. linear momentum). When things start to spin, they want to keep spinning. The smaller the spin radius (closer together), the faster they go. The initial spin was caused by things not being in perfect alignment when pulled together. If they didn’t collide, they passed each other, and the closeness increased the gravitational pull, which created a curved path for each object (based on the comparative masses and distance). This mutual curved path is the beginning of an ellipse or circle. It’s all just conservation from there.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Sticks Said:
>There are two types of creation, macro and micro evolution.
Please give a clear dilineation between macro and micro evolution, and what keeps a lot of microevolution from adding up to macroevolution.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:07 am
That reminds me of the Family Guy episode entitled “Petarded,” in which a chart was displayed listing various groups in descending order of IQ, with “mentally retarded” followed by “Peter,” and finally, at the very bottom, “creationists.” Much laughing ensued.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:11 am
OK here is some clarification of terms, as I understand them
Micro Evolution
Micro evolution states that things can change, but with in limits. Phylogenetic boundaries are respected and not violated.
In the dog world we have all kinds of breeds, because of selective breeding over the years, but two dogs from different breeds can mate giving young that can go on to have young of their own. The dog is still a dog.
It is similar amongst horses, cattle cats and people plus others that do not spring to mind at this time
Religion mixed with Evolution
There is a term for the idea in religion that evolution did happen, but may be it was directed over the millions of years. This term is called Theistic Evolution. (Also referred to by some as Directed Evolution).
I hope this helps
December 20th, 2005 at 11:18 am
Irishman said: “There seems to be some disagreement on terminology here. When most people see the word “Creationismâ€?, they do not take it to mean a mere belief in God, or a belief that God is the creator of all. Rather, they take it to mean that God directly and magically created the world and humanity out of nothing. Creationism is the label for direct, immediate popping into existence of the world. ”
It has come to this, I agree. But, only because most creationists are not wanting involvment. Scientists should be weary of this trap. Only a select sub-group are the creationists that need addressing. It is this group that will push to be labeled in general terms (i.e. creationism), to garner support from other creationists. If all creationists become offended in some way, these smaller groups (e.g. YEC) will gain in political influence, unnecessarily.
I suspect the taxonomy burden for labeling this variety of folks, should fall on those targeting them. I doubt other creationists will put a lot of effort into it, though it would be helpful. Eventually, creationists might, but some collateral damage will have already occurred.
Unfortunately, I haven’t found any term snappy enough either.
Instant Earthers, YECers, Excessive Literalists, ????
Another point of interest, hopefully, is to minimize the personal element by attacking the specific arguments, rather than the individual. I know some YEC folks and, these at least, are great individuals.
One last thougt (though my ballon will likely get lead-coated) is to demonstrate that a scenario exists which is not in conflict with Genesis, and is compatible with cosmology and evolution. Of course, no evidence will exist to offer any hope of confirmation, but, this is unnecessary; only some small degree of plausibility is needed. This would help muzzle both tooth and bark from Instant Eartherism, YECtionism, Branch Creationism, ???, whatever they be.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:18 am
Sticks, you said:
“There are two types of creation, macro and micro evolution.
…
“Why can’t we all just get along?â€? ”
First of all, the disctinction between micro- and macro-evolution is one that has been created by anti-evolutionists, in order to defend their position against laboratory experiments that demonstrate evolution happening in a culture of microbes or bottle of fruit flies.
Evolutionary biologists make no such distinction, and there is no reason to make any such distinction. Furthermore, no-one has ever proposed a credible mechanism by which any such distinction could be maintained.
We can’t all get along because some anti-evolutionists insist on misrepresenting scientific data, cherry-picking, and sometimes outright lying to convince people that their point of view is the “right” one. I’m sure that every scientist I’ve ever met would be more than happy just to get along with everybody else. How would you feel if someone with a very poor understanding of your work started publicly telling people that your work was a load of nonsense?
Irishman, when you say:
“A better term for them is Religious Evolutionist, though that doesn’t easily roll off the tongue.”
I think that would be a theistic evolutionist. Not a much easier term, but one I have seen on several websites, including Talk Origins.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:21 am
Antipodean, you said:
“while they’re at it, they can go back to living in huts ”
Well, I think that may be going a bit far (are bricks and mortar more than a theory?). However, you put me in mind of the Amish community, who shun the use of any technology that uses electricity or combustion engines.
I do admire their integrity. That is what I call standing up for what you believe in.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
I get the joke, and I am a big fan of Doonesbury, but I didn’t like that particular strip very much.
I hate to be a stick in the mud, but I think we should take care to apply scientific precepts carefully, even when poking fun at those who don’t. In point of fact, microbes have not “evolved” in response to antibiotics. Certain less-immune strains have been suppressed by the antibiotics, so the more-immune strains have become more common. But these were just separate strains in a pre-existing population. It is not really even correct to say that the microbes have “developed” an immunity; environmental pressures have simply caused those microbes which happened to be immune to become a larger segment of the microbe population, the immunity itself is probably not really new. (Of course, I don’t claim to know every gene in every strain, so it could be that some of the resistances really are the result of new mutations, but I imagine that this is less likely – perhaps a microbiologist will correct me.) In any case, we are only talking about a statistical shift in the prevalence of one strain or another within an existing species. As far as I know, no new species have evolved in the few decades that antibiotics have been used.
Of course, the phenomena of external influences causing a statistical shifting in a population is the same mechanism as natural selection (though I’m not sure “natural” would be an appropriate word in this case). And, certainly, the fact that microbe populations statistics have shifted so quickly does make it even easier for many people to believe that in several million (or in this case perhaps even just a few thousand) years, a whole new species of microbe could result. But it is an oversimplification to say that the microbes have “evolved” to become more resistant, and as such it does a disservice to the theory of evolution. Ultimately, such haphazard use of the term plays into the hands of those who are opposed to the theory, because if you call something “evolution” but it can be easily refuted, then the anti-evolutionist will claim that refutation as a victory, even if the thing being refuted was not really evolution in the first place.
(Extra credit to anyone who can diagram that last sentence!)
December 21st, 2005 at 5:23 am
I believe something similar happened with Ketterwell’s Peppered Moth. There was a change in the ratios of the black and white moth poulations, first when we had the industrial revolution and all the trees went black and then when the clean air act reversed that.
The moth was held up as an example of evolution, yet it was nothing of the sort.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:15 am
Rodgers says: any case, we are only talking about a statistical shift in the prevalence of one strain or another within an existing species.
Yes, and that is exactly what we mean when we say “the species evolved”. A statistical shift in the relative proportion of existing versions of a given gene in a population is the very definition of natural selection. So I do not know what you mean when you say this isn’t evolution, it is the textbook definition of evolution. That is why peppered moths are used as an example.
And yes, it is known new antibiotic-resistance mutations have taken place. While I am not sure whether the antibiotic resistance existed in the original population, I remember that for at least one antibiotic the original antibiotic resistance genes were less efficient in everyday life than the wild-type alleles of those genes. So in the absence of antibiotics the non-resistant strains dominated. However, after long-term use of at least one type of antibiotics, a new antibiotic-resistant strain developed, one that was not around originally and whose antibiotic-resistant gene is just as good as the wild-type gene. This makes the resistant strain able to effectively compete with the non-resistant strain even in environements free of antibiotics. This gene was not present in the original populations, it did not appear until after antibiotics had been used for quite a while.
Now if you want a case of another bacterial mutation that we know was not present in nature beforehand, take the enzyme that some bacteria have that breaks down nylon. Nylon is completely synthetic, there is no natural version of it. Yet nowadays some bacteria have a very specific nylon-digesting enzyme. There is no way this enzyme could have existed before nylon was invented, so obviously it is a recent mutation.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:12 am
Is Natural Selection always the same as Evolution?
Evolution is supposed to document change in the make up of a creature from one generation to the next (From the Greek, Evolve means just change)
With the peppered moth, one creature did not change into another, there were white and black moths, just like it still is today. The only change was in ratios between the two populations.
Nature selected that there would be more black moths during the industrial revolution when they were harder to see by predatory birds. When the clean air act meant that the soot laden trees cleared up, then nature selected that the white moths would be more abundant.
Natural selection in action, yes
Evolution, not really as we have white and black moths to this day.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:13 am
First of all, evolution does not talk about “creatures”, it talks about populations. An individual creature does not change, only a population of creatures (or plants, protists, fungi, bacteria, or archea) changes. Second, evolution is, by definition, the change in the relative frequency of different versions of a genes (alleles) or multiple genes in a population. If the frequency of enough genes change, or the frequency of one important gene, then you may get a group that can not interbreed with the original group, and are hence a new species. This is not necessarily the case, however, as even a reltively small change in the frequency of a rather unimportant gene is still evolution. To take the peppered moth case, originally a much larger fraction of the population had the version of the pigmentation gene that resulted in light coloration (I’ll call it the light allele) relative to the those who had the version of the gene that resulted in dark coloration I’ll call it the dark allele). This relative proportion changed, with the dark allele becoming much more common than the light allele. Later, it switched back to having the light allele being much more common than the dark one. This is the fact of evolution. The relative proportion of different versions genes within a population does change over time, this is well-established.
The theory of natural selection, on the other hand, is an explanation for why this occurs. It explains why the fact of evolution is true. It says that competition for resources results in the genetic makeup of a population generally shifting in favor of versions of genes that are most likely to allow an individual with those versions to reproduce. The theory of evolution is more broad, containing a number of seperate theories. These theories were all developed to explain the fact of evolution, the fact that the genetic makeup of a population changes. These various theories are similar in nature to traditional natural selection, but do have some important differences. These theories apply under different, specific situations. So although the modern form of natural selection works in a great many situations, there are some where natural selection either does not apply, is not that important important, or is not sufficient. In those cases other theories are applied alongside or in place of traditional natural selection to give a better explanation of what happened. So the theory of evolution includes all the tried-and-true theories that are used to explain the fact of evolution under a variety of circumstances. You could consider it analogous to physics, where under different situation newtonian physics, special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, or some combination thereof gives the best explanation, while in another situation a different one of those or a different combination is superior.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:23 pm
TheBlackCat says:
Now if you want a case of another bacterial mutation that we know was not present in nature beforehand, take the enzyme that some bacteria have that breaks down nylon.
I the the BA also recently mentioned that a bacterium has evolved that can digest PCP.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:44 pm
It’s so ridiculous how people don’t even know what evolution IS. Rodgers basically describes the definition of evolution via natural selection and then claims that it’s not evolution. Ridiculous!
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:10 am
Leon said:
“…a bacterium has evolved that can digest PCP.”
That would be one scary bug!
CBBB said:
“It’s so ridiculous how people don’t even know what evolution IS. Rodgers basically describes the definition of evolution via natural selection and then claims that it’s not evolution. Ridiculous!”
Bear in mind that he is a product of the education system he experienced. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about being ignorant – it is only wrong if a person claims intellectual authority from a position of ignorance. I think Rodgers’ view might be quite widespread, which is why creationists find a willing audience for their propaganda.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:03 am
In the limited example, the Peppered moth is still a Peppered moth. At a seminar I attended in Scotland, on Creationism in 1987, during the Q&A period I did ask if the Peppered Moth was an example of Micro Evolution, and the answer was that it was not even that, it was just a change in the ratios as both variants still exist, the moth did not change, and this was an example of something presented as evidence of macro evolution when it nothing of the sort.
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:44 am
Nigel Depledge Says:
However, you put me in mind of the Amish community, who shun the use of any technology that uses electricity or combustion engines.
Obviously, there are different sects of the Amish faith, but some of the ones around here are slightly more utilitarian in their application of these restrictions. Electric appliances and IC engines can be used in some circumstances, usually where they improve “professional” productivity, i.e. if it helps them build houses or cut wood more efficiently. If it’s for personal pleasure or convenience, forget it. “In the barn, good; in the house, bad.” Sounds sexist to me, but… I’d love to spend some time with an Amish elder and ask him what the cutoff date is for “good” technology.
Back to the topic, I have a problem with this comic strip as well. It’s one thing for a person to accept that variations exist within a population that will be more or less resistant to pharmaceuticals. It seems to be a huge leap from accepting that to accepting the whole amoeba -> fish -> cow -> dolphin progression. That seems as fantastic to a creationist as creationism seems to the scientist.
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:35 am
JL Says:
Until someone can definitively explain to me what caused the Big Bang
“Causing” implies that there was a “before”. If you cause something to
happen, whatever happens does so after whatever you did that caused it.
Since time was created in the Big Bang, there was no before, so nothing
caused it.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:16 am
Sticks, there is no such thing as macro and micro evolution. There is just evolution. There can be a lot of evolution or a little evolution, but it is still evolution. If you are going to keep using these terms please tell us how a lot of microevolution cannot turn into macroevolution. Just claiming it hasn’t been observed is both wrong and irrelevant, please tell us specifically why it is impossible. And whoever told you that the peppered moth is not an example of so-called “micro evolution” was wrong. Flat out wrong. It is a textbook example of evolution. That is why it is used so much. Just because someone told you it isn’t an example of micro evolution does not mean they are correct. I told you the definition of evolution, I told you what happened in the peppered moth, and I showed you how what happened to the peppered moth fits the definition of evolution perfectly. Just saying “someone told me it wasn’t an example of evolution” isn’t going to cut it. It isn’t even argument from authority because we have no evidence the person who told you this was an authority on anything. You will have to explain why it isn’t an example, based on the correct defintion of evolution. Now there is some debate whether the soot from the trees was actually the cause, but that is irrelevant. The frequency of genes in the population changed, for whatever reason, and that is evolution, no matter what some guy at a seminar on creationism told you.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:01 am
Apparently I am using the wrong term, I should have been using the term Special Theory of Evolution not Micro evolution. Apologies for the confusion.
I know this is a creationist site, but at least this link http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Biological-Evolution.pdf gives a definition of Special Theory of Evolution than I can
The person who gave the seminar was a food micro biologist by training and he seemed quite knowlegable and authoritative on the subject.
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:19 am
I’ll try not to take offence at the suggestion that I am the ignorant product of some sort of broken educational systems.
My intent was not to start a conversation about the formal definition of evolution. Though any given group would need a working definition for the purposes of communication, the question of what is THE definition is largely a semantic one, which serves only to distract people from the real question at hand. As such, it can only serve to aid those who are trying to confuse the issue, this is why about half of the first-page hits in a Google search for “definition of evolution” turn out to be creationist sites. (Or, for a better example, in the 2 days since my first post, roughly half of the replies have been about precisely what sort of genetic changes constitute “evolution”, and only two of them have addressed the real problem with the cartoon.)
The bottom line is this; the fact that recently developed medications have caused a change in the population of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacterium does not in any way contradict the myth of creationism – for all of Trudeau’s insightful political commentary, this particular strip really missed the mark.
My key point (as I think a careful reading of my original post will show) is only that it would be a mistake to use the recent drug-resistant microbes as evidence against “creation”, and anyone who attempts to do so in a debate with an even marginally well-informed creationist will find themselves being embarrassed, which will only reinforce the misconception that evolution is a weak theory.
If you are interested in discussing the logic of Trudeau’s “argument”, or the question of how best to refute creationism/ID with scientific data, then I would love to read your response.
If you are interested in bickering over semantics and jargon, please to not reference my posts.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Sticks Said:
>Micro Evolution
>Micro evolution states that things can change, but with in limits. Phylogenetic boundaries are respected and not violated. In the dog world we have all kinds of breeds, because of selective breeding over the years, but two dogs from different breeds can mate giving young that can go on to have young of their own. The dog is still a dog. It is similar amongst horses, cattle cats and people plus others that do not spring to mind at this time.
Okay, you have explained what you mean by MicroEvolution. Except that I already understood what you meant. What you have failed to do is answer the second part of the question, “what keeps a lot of microevolution from adding up to macroevolution.â€
>Apparently I am using the wrong term, I should have been using the term Special Theory of Evolution not Micro evolution. Apologies for the confusion.
I checked the link. I’m still not certain that biologists use that terminology. Nevertheless, that link still does not explain what limits change to phylogenetic boundaries.
George Said:
>>Irishman said: “There seems to be some disagreement on terminology here. When most people see the word “Creationism‿, they do not take it to mean a mere belief in God, or a belief that God is the creator of all. Rather, they take it to mean that God directly and magically created the world and humanity out of nothing. Creationism is the label for direct, immediate popping into existence of the world. â€
>It has come to this, I agree. But, only because most creationists are not wanting involvment. Scientists should be weary of this trap. Only a select sub-group are the creationists that need addressing. It is this group that will push to be labeled in general terms (i.e. creationism), to garner support from other creationists. If all creationists become offended in some way, these smaller groups (e.g. YEC) will gain in political influence, unnecessarily.
>I suspect the taxonomy burden for labeling this variety of folks, should fall on those targeting them. I doubt other creationists will put a lot of effort into it, though it would be helpful. Eventually, creationists might, but some collateral damage will have already occurred.
Except that the terminology and distinctions have a history to them. Prior to Darwin, there was not a scientific model for biological diversity and origins, the only model was the religious one of Creationism. There were efforts at proposing evolutionary scientific models, but they were flawed and discarded. Once Darwin and Wallace came along and proposed Natural Selection, that provided a foundation for a scientific description. But the only alternative to juxtapose against was the religious Creationist model, the literalist Genesis account. That is why the lines got divided as Evolution vs. Creationism. The Creationist label already meant literalist, so the modern use of Creationist to mean literalist is accurate. It is those of you who are religious but evolutionists who are taking the newfangled viewpoint, so it is you who should obtain the new label and let the old label continue to mean what it did.
>Another point of interest, hopefully, is to minimize the personal element by attacking the specific arguments, rather than the individual. I know some YEC folks and, these at least, are great individuals.
There is a distinction between attacking the arguments of a group collectively and attacking the individuals and the group proposing those arguments.
>One last thougt (though my ballon will likely get lead-coated) is to demonstrate that a scenario exists which is not in conflict with Genesis, and is compatible with cosmology and evolution.
Or one can just accept that Genesis is a poetical description to convey a religious sentiment and should not be interpreted as a scientific description.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
TheBlackCat Said:
>First of all, evolution does not talk about “creaturesâ€, it talks about populations. An individual creature does not change, only a population of creatures (or plants, protists, fungi, bacteria, or archea) changes. Second, evolution is, by definition, the change in the relative frequency of different versions of a genes (alleles) or multiple genes in a population.
Okay, now we’re getting into some confusing ground, which is why discussing Evolution is so difficult. The population genetics approach to evolution is certainly the common approach to Evolution, but it is not the only approach, and by doing so it misses out on the aspects of evolution that are most connecting with the lay public.
Yes, evolution is discussing changes at the species level. Changes to individuals are not directly evolution, because the change has to spread through the species. In that sense, it is definitely accurate to discuss evolution as the change in allele frequency in the gene pool of the species. And by that definition of evolution, any change in allele distribution is evolution.
However, when most people think of a species, they do not think of gene pools. They think of exemplars – this is a dog, this is a cat, this is a pine tree, this is an E. coli bacterium. True, a dog is actually a cloud of variations in the specifics, but it is a set of basic characteristics. Population genetics talks about that cloud of variations at the level that the changes are made, and the reasons for those variations. But what that fails to address is the conception of dogs as a set of characteristics, and the failure to convey that the set of characteristics that define “dog” can vary over large time scales as the traits within that variation cloud drift. People fail to grasp that what is a modern “dog” may be non-interbreedable with what was a “dog” 2000 years ago. Or maybe it’s 10,000 years ago.
There’s an article in the Nov/Dec 2005 Skeptical Inquirer that discusses Evolution education, and it proposes a new approach that uses the new science of Evolutionary Development biology, or Evo-Devo. Evo-Devo is looking at embryology from a new direction, trying to determine how things go from a genetic set to a fully developed individual. True, we know about genetics and DNA and genes, but that doesn’t explain how genes make a monkey a monkey, a bat a bat, and a cow a cow.
Briefly, the original problem related to seeing how genes create the physical structures, and it was assumed that the genes to make those structures would be vastly different for the different animals. However, the remarkable discovery was that the development of various body parts such as eyes, limbs, and hearts, was governed by the same genes in different animals. For instance, mice and humans have virtually identical sets of about 25,000 genes, and that chimps and humans are about 99 percent identical at the DNA level.
What causes the variations is not that the genes that govern the structure are different, but rather that there are a separate set of genes that regulate those structure genes, determining when, where, and how much of a gene’s product is made. Integrating Evo-Devo into modern Evolution has been a major breakthrough, because it brings in the remaining aspect of biological development that has not been rolled in, embryology. The point of the article is that Evo-Devo offers new insights for teaching Evolution because it talks about the evolution of form, how physical shape is expressed.
With respect to this conversation, it is important to discuss population genetics and what evolution means in that context, but Evo-Devo offers a different context, and it is somewhat short-sighted to imply that “Evolution” can only be defined in the population genetics context.
July 2nd, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Creationist Comics by Doonesbury
I found that the Creationist Comics by Doonesbury really speaks on behalf of those who apply the scientific method in making medical decisions and a warning to the Creationists who choose to die in order to maintain their anti-scientific and psuedo-scientific life-stances.