The valuable points

PZ Myers has a post about the people who are obsessed with making science out to be the accommodating factor for religion. It simply isn’t true and I want to emphasis an important point; this can’t be repeated enough.

Funny thing is, in those situations (as well as in the classroom) I just focus on telling the story of the evidence. That is our strength, right? I don’t have to announce that the Book of Genesis is wrong and silly, but I also don’t have to go out of my way to tell them some pretty excuse to allow them to continue to believe in talking snakes. And if I’m asked, I tell them straightforwardly that literal religious accounts are falsified by the evidence.

The most important (implicit) point here, I think, is that science is not approached from a theistic or atheistic point of view. Of course, it best supports an atheistic view point (with at least a worthwhile case being made for a deistic view), but that doesn’t mean that atheism is assumed in science. It simply isn’t. Science influences our philosophies and religions; it should never be the other way around. The only philosophy that should influence science is the one that says evidence matters above all else. Of course, that can be applied to just about anything. The big difference between science and “just about anything” is that scientists actually do apply that philosophy.

It is interesting. I think a lot of people recognize that no philosophy is more important than that one. That’s why creationists are always trying to claim the prestige of science. First it started with the de facto assumption that science supported particular gods. Then it moved to the term “creation science”. When that failed, “intelligent design” was introduced (or rather, reintroduced – it’s just a rehashing of Paley’s Watchmaker). Now there’s a mesh of ID and out-and-out lying. Creationists want science to support their inane views because they know the very word “science” lends credit to any idea. BS diet pills, penis extension pills/creams, chiropractors, acupuncturists, and other kooks/kook companies will always slap “clinically proven” or talk about the “science” of their fields because they realize the exact same thing.

But the creationists are fundamentally flawed. They don’t actually follow any evidence. Most creationists either have no college education or have no education in biology. They can’t follow the evidence because they don’t understand the evidence. Wholly, it’s frustrating. Every week I gain a new detail in one of my biology courses, I recognize that it would make absolutely no sense without evolution. That paper by Theodosius Dobzhansky titled “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” held only a rhetorical position in my mind many years ago. As I’ve grown to better appreciate the immensity of the evidence for evolution, I find myself saying it with meaning at least once a week.

And here’s the big kicker. My atheism hasn’t once influenced any of my thoughts on evolution. It doesn’t work that way. Evolution influences my atheism (though doesn’t force it). Imagine for a moment an experiment. Let’s take the Lenski experiments. Can anyone name me the point where atheism or theism influenced anything here? It isn’t possible. Why? Because science is not approached from those point of views. How could Lenksi? “Well, God must exist, so my result must reflect that. Instead of describing just my scientific methods, I will attribute any results to prayer.” Reversing that for an atheistic point of view is equally non-sensical.

Science should never be harmed for the sake of a point of view. It is the best representation of the truth that is available to anyone. Purely for that reason – that it is true – it should be held in regard far above any theisms or lack thereof.

About these ads

11 Responses

  1. But the creationists are fundamentally flawed. They don’t actually follow any evidence. Most creationists either have no college education or have no education in biology.

    Most evolutionists don’t have a college education either.

    I follow evidence. Are you ever going to discuss any or are you simply here to post about how much you hate creationists?

  2. Given that neither one of us is going to be able to provide anything other than personal experience about who has what education, I’ll have to just point to the fact that people who do have educations relevant to biology are largely not creationists.

    If you’d like to discuss evidence, I have a category available on the left side of the page. “Evolution” will also include a lot of evidence (especially for older posts since “Evidence” is a relatively new category).

  3. Given that neither one of us is going to be able to provide anything other than personal experience about who has what education, I’ll have to just point to the fact that people who do have educations relevant to biology are largely not creationists.

    So? Lots of people agree with you.

    Big deal.

    If you’d like to discuss evidence, I have a category available on the left side of the page. “Evolution” will also include a lot of evidence (especially for older posts since “Evidence” is a relatively new category).

    I prefer not to jump into old discussions. :)

  4. So? Lots of people agree with you.

    Big deal.

    If this was merely an appeal to popularity, it wouldn’t be a big deal. No doubt, this is what you think I did. What actually happened was I just pointed out that education usually equals the rejection of silly creationist beliefs. In other words, those with the ability to actually follow evidence, virtually invariably find themselves squarely in the realm of those darn EVILutionists.

  5. So what?

  6. Well, if you were able to put things together and understood what “context” was, you’d realize that the point is it takes education to be able to properly follow any evidence. Those with education are rarely creationists.

  7. Of course education is important. I agree that there are numerically less creationists than evolutionists.

    Once again, So What?

    Can you make a point, already?

  8. My patience has run thin. You’re an idiot.

  9. OK, then. Perhaps someone else could take the time to explain the point to me.

    I agree that there are more evolutionists than creationists in the world. I agree that there are more evolutionists than creationists from those with a university, or even high school, education.

    If we agree on this, why is it being brought up?

    I don’t think I’m an idiot. I think if you simply state the point I’ll be able to read it.

    For the record: I have a university degree (Earth Science) and am a creationist.

  10. “the point is it takes education to be able to properly follow any evidence. Those with education are rarely creationists.”

    In other words, creationists tend to not be educated in biology (other than through AnswersInGenesis), explaing why they are unable to follow evidence. Education is necessary to understanding sciences, namely biology here.

  11. Most evolutionists aren’t educated in biology either.

    It doesn’t take an education in biology to be able to follow evidence.

    I thought you’d given up :)

Can I haz commentz?

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 197 other followers

%d bloggers like this: