Sunday, May 11, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

I Am Evolution

by NPR

Thanks to Kevin Stacey for the link.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90311455

I Am Evolution
by Holly Dunsworth

Weekend Edition Sunday, May 11, 2008. I believe evolution. It's easy. It's my life. I'm a paleoanthropologist. I study fossils of humans, apes and monkeys, and I teach college students about their place in nature.

Of course I believe evolution.

But that is different from believing in evolution.

To believe in something takes faith, trust, effort, strength. I need none of these things to believe evolution. It just is. My health is better because of medical research based on evolution. My genetic code is practically the same as a chimpanzee's. My bipedal feet walk on an earth full of fossil missing links. And when my feet tire, those fossils fuel my car.

To believe in something also implies hope. Hope of happiness, reward, forgiveness, eternal life. There is no hope wrapped up in my belief. Unless you count the hope that one day I'll discover the most beautifully complete fossil human skeleton ever found, with a label attached saying exactly what species it belonged to, what food it ate, how much it hunted, if it could speak, if it could laugh, if it could love and if it could throw a curveball. But this fantasy is not why I believe evolution — as if evolution is something I hope comes true.

After all the backyard bone collecting I did as a child, I managed to carve out a career where I get to ask the ultimate question on a daily basis: "Where did I come from and how?"

If our beliefs are important enough, we live our lives in service to them. That's how I feel about evolution. My role as a female Homo sapiens is to return each summer to Kenya, dig up fossils, and piece together our evolutionary history. Scanning the ground for weeks, hoping to find a single molar, or gouging out the side of a hill, one bucket of dirt at a time, I'm always in search of answers to questions shared by the whole human species. The experience deepens my understanding not just about what drives my life, but all our lives, where we came from. And the deeper I go, the more I understand that everything is connected. A bullfrog to a gorilla, a hummingbird to me, to you.

My belief is not immutable. It is constantly evolving with accumulating evidence, new knowledge and breakthrough discoveries. For example, within my lifetime, our history has expanded from being rooted 3 million years ago with the famous Lucy skeleton, to actually beginning over 6 million years ago with a cranium from Chad. The metamorphic nature of my belief is not at all like a traditional religious one; it's more like seeing is believing.

So I believe evolution.

I feel it. I breathe it. I listen to evolution, I observe it and I do evolution. I write, study, analyze, scrutinize and collect evolution. I am evolution.

Independently produced for Weekend Edition Sunday by Jay Allison and Dan Gediman with John Gregory and Viki Merrick.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, May 11, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 41 of 41 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #178366 by AshtonBlack on May 11, 2008 at 9:56 am

Very nice. :)

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

2. Comment #178367 by ronfac on May 11, 2008 at 9:58 am

Lovely, wish I'd said that. But then I'm not a paleoanthroplogist.

Other Comments by ronfac

3. Comment #178370 by Vinelectric on May 11, 2008 at 10:01 am

"One bucket of dirt at a time"

I hope that "God" heard that..

Other Comments by Vinelectric

4. Comment #178374 by mordacious1 on May 11, 2008 at 10:07 am

This is kind of like saying "I believe air. I breath in oxygen and it gives me life...". It's sad that someone has to write a piece about "I believe evolution" when evolution is a FACT. Instead we should just use evolution without ANY modifiers.

Other Comments by mordacious1

5. Comment #178382 by Styrer- on May 11, 2008 at 10:25 am

Comment #178374 by mordacious1 on May 11, 2008 at 10:07 am

I am afraid I agree. This constant combining of 'belief' with 'evolution' risks refuting the very point the article seeks to make. Clarifying that 'belief in evolution' is entirely wrong-headed is ill-served by the rhetorical device used here. Not a great article.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

6. Comment #178387 by Quine on May 11, 2008 at 10:39 am

I have said this before, but this is a good place to reiterate that when people ask me if I believe in evolution, I answer, "I don't have to believe in evolution; I can check it."

Other Comments by Quine

7. Comment #178390 by flobear on May 11, 2008 at 10:43 am

I think one of the reasons scientists find it so difficult to write beautifully in defense of evolution is that they're just completely befuddled at the disbelief.

Also, their training and experience does not equip them to handle those with intentional and determined ignorance.

Other Comments by flobear

8. Comment #178396 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 11, 2008 at 10:55 am

I listen to evolution, I observe it and I do evolution.

And evolution never calls, and I bump into evolution at Starbucks and there's an awkward exchange of words that include "I meant to call you, but I've been busy, y'know, with evolving an shit."
"That's kewl," I say, sheepishly, and all the things I want to say to evolution are lost in my throat, never to be born, and I hope and pray that evolution WILL call, but evolution never does...evolution's a heartless bastard.

Wait...that's not what she meant, is it?

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

9. Comment #178399 by Disbelief on May 11, 2008 at 10:58 am

I agree, it's sad that this article had to be written.

Comment #178387 by Quine on May 11, 2008 at 10:39 am
I have said this before, but this is a good place to reiterate that when people ask me if I believe in evolution, I answer, "I don't have to believe in evolution; I can check it."

Right on!

Other Comments by Disbelief

10. Comment #178404 by ft77 on May 11, 2008 at 11:03 am

Penn Jillette also went on this programme with the title "I believe there is no god."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

Other Comments by ft77

11. Comment #178418 by mordacious1 on May 11, 2008 at 11:34 am

Just love Penn. When you go to the link the article is titled "There is No God". This is Penn's true statement. He just added belief in the clip because that was the premise. I stole his "I'm so beyond atheism that there's no word in the english dictionary for it." statement several months ago. Sums me up quite nicely.

Other Comments by mordacious1

12. Comment #178429 by rickenbacker77 on May 11, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Merriam Webster:
believe -- 1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real

I think the writer is applying definition 1b. And if that's the test, then I too, believe evolution.

"The metamorphic nature of my belief is not at all like a traditional religious one; it's more like seeing is believing."

I think that says it all. Loved the essay.

Other Comments by rickenbacker77

13. Comment #178436 by Barry Pearson on May 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm

"Believe" is a perfectly good word here!

I have published my positions on certain words ("Belief", "knowledge", and "proof") here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/me.htm#words

Also, see:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/believe

What fraction of the population has enough information to accept evolution as a fact? 1%? So what should the other 99% say? That they too accept it as a fact even without that information? Do we want people to be so easily convinced? Why? "Mere authority"? (Evolution today - creationism tomorrow).

It requires a lot of information to accept "evolution" as a fact. It requires vastly more information to accept "evolution by natural selection" (a different topic, of course) as a scientifically validated theory.

Those of us responding here are probably within the 1% of the population who know enough to credibly have confidence in "evolution by natural selection". But we shouldn't demand or even expect this from others. And I don't think we should speak as though we expect it.

What we should want is that they admit their ignorance, and a desire to learn. We have a right to criticise those who refute "evolution by natural selection" without doing their homework first.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

14. Comment #178507 by rotaTOR on May 11, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Here we have a scientist who takes pleasure in her work and life and wants to share that with other people,without mentioning religion as her source. What happens? She is attacked for it! How lame is that?

Other Comments by rotaTOR

15. Comment #178512 by mordacious1 on May 11, 2008 at 2:17 pm

hmmm I don't say I believe gravity, or clouds, or concrete, or whatnot. Whenever the word belief is added, it denotes that there is doubt. There is no doubt among educated people, therefor no need to use "believe". Sorry, I have to stick to my guns on this one.

Other Comments by mordacious1

16. Comment #178520 by heafnerj on May 11, 2008 at 2:25 pm

I heard this on NPR this morning and gave a silent cheer (I was still in bed snoozing). As a teacher, I have a bit of a problem with "believing" in science as opposed to "accepting" it, but the overall message is good.

Other Comments by heafnerj

17. Comment #178523 by RamziD on May 11, 2008 at 2:37 pm

I think this article is a creative way of making a point. I find nothing wrong with saying "I believe" something that is true. Like the poster above who quoted the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the author was merely pointing out the difference between definition 1a and 1b to better assert her acceptance of evolution and what it means to her. It's something that we often take for granted, but the distinction is legitimate.

Other Comments by RamziD

18. Comment #178527 by mordacious1 on May 11, 2008 at 2:42 pm

rotaTOR No one is attacking her life or her work, we are just discussing semantics. Words are important, especially when some of the readers/listeners are people who don't "believe" in evolution. If one uses their word, it gives credence to their warped view of science.

Other Comments by mordacious1

19. Comment #178528 by aussieatheist_111 on May 11, 2008 at 2:43 pm

" Those of us responding here are probably within the 1% of the population who know enough to credibly have confidence in "evolution by natural selection". But we shouldn't demand or even expect this from others. And I don't think we should speak as though we expect it. "

Given the countless examples of scientists being correct when they say something is a fact (I'm thinking engineering, medical advances, etc.), I think it is rather reasonable to expect the masses to trust the word of scientists. By all means, check it out independently, but trsuting scientists, especially when there is no tentative semantics or throngs of critics and doubters involved, is surely not irrational?

Other Comments by aussieatheist_111

20. Comment #178536 by mordacious1 on May 11, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Barry Evolution, fact. Natural Selection, theory. If you want to say that you believe in Natural Seletion that's fine with me.

Other Comments by mordacious1

21. Comment #178568 by MuNky82 on May 11, 2008 at 3:54 pm

rickenbacker77 wrote:

Merriam Webster:
believe -- 1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real

I think the writer is applying definition 1b. And if that's the test, then I too, believe evolution.

Ah yes, but creationists (in their "fudging the truth until it feels good" way) only read the definitions that fit their views. Type in "theory" at www.merriam-webster.com and they read definition 2 or 6b, instead of 1, 3 or 5.

Other Comments by MuNky82

22. Comment #178571 by robotaholic on May 11, 2008 at 3:56 pm

I think the point of her essay was to show that evolution is correct. It also seems perfectly logical that if you asked an anthropologist if they believe in evolution that they would say yes. There is nothing wrong with this paper and also I enjoyed it. -Some people are just argumentative and difficult...

Half the people objecting to the word "believe" in this paper would not object if used in the context of quantum physics: "I believe in quantum physics."- I can't imagine someone objecting: "Quantum physics is not something to believe in- it's something to accept"-

Like I said, people should just not be so uptight!

(besides she's really really pretty lol http://www.personal.psu.edu/hmd120/ )

Other Comments by robotaholic

23. Comment #178586 by heafnerj on May 11, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Yes, I certainly do distinguish between between *belief* and *acceptance* because the former doesn't require evidence whereas the latter does. I've been teaching science for fifteen years and it's about time we, not just the scientific community but everyone, paid more attention to simple terminology. It's not an issue of being "uptight"; that accusation is indeed a deeply entrenched part of the fundamental problem.

And yes, it is incorrect to say that "I believe in quantum physics." because quantum physics is based on experimental evidence, not blind faith. Therefore, belief is not in order. And remember that Webster doesn't always get it right.

Anyway, terminological subtleties may be arguable to experienced scientists, but certainly they are quite confusing and a learning barrier to young, untrained, introductory students. Use terms for which there is no ambiguity for the introductory students and let their terminological proficiency grow with their reasoning abilities.

For the record, I'm completely in favor of the essay, so please nix the straw man arguments and burden shifting. ;-) Lastly, commenting on one's choice of words isn't the same as attacking one. I would have thought posters here would know the difference! I don't seen a single ad hominem attack among the comments here.

Other Comments by heafnerj

24. Comment #178587 by mordacious1 on May 11, 2008 at 4:27 pm

robotaholic Any part of quantum physics that is theory, and that is a heck of alot, then use "believe if you wish. Once it is generally understood by the scientific community to be fact, then drop the "believe". This is not a complex concept, people.

Other Comments by mordacious1

25. Comment #178589 by Rational_G on May 11, 2008 at 4:36 pm

rickenbacker77 has it right.

And the author explains exactly what she means in the first few sentences.

So everybody chill out.

Nice essay.

Other Comments by Rational_G

26. Comment #178625 by dragonfirematrix on May 11, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Bravo! Very well said!

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

27. Comment #178632 by will young on May 11, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Since this was from the NPR series 'This I Believe' it would be sort of hard to avoid using the word believe, I believe.

No one owns language, not even the religious fascists. She made her point quite poetically and I especially liked the title.

Other Comments by will young

28. Comment #178675 by wiz220 on May 11, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Indeed! After all... A is A.

Other Comments by wiz220

29. Comment #178724 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 1:01 am

aussieatheist_111 said: Given the countless examples of scientists being correct when they say something is a fact (I'm thinking engineering, medical advances, etc.), I think it is rather reasonable to expect the masses to trust the word of scientists. By all means, check it out independently, but trsuting scientists, especially when there is no tentative semantics or throngs of critics and doubters involved, is surely not irrational?

But what proportion of the population is aware of "no ... throngs of critics and doubters involved"?

And the general population is kept aware of science that goes (temporarily) wrong, causing engineering or medical disasters, because it makes headlines.

After a degree in Mathematical Physics, a career as an engineer, and decades of pleasure from reading about science (many books each year, New Scientist each week, etc), I am still cautious about what scientists say!

mordacious1 said: Barry Evolution, fact. Natural Selection, theory. If you want to say that you believe in Natural Seletion that's fine with me.

WE know evolution is a fact, (and I have no doubt that "evolution by natural selection" is a universal process/algorithm, almost like a law of Information Theory). But we don't represent the vast majority of the population who don't know (or perhaps care) about this science.

And we know what we mean by "evolution is a fact". But most of the population, if they think about it at all, probably link "evolution" to "Darwin", and THAT special version of evolution ("evolution by natural selection") isn't a fact in the same way.

heafnerj said: Yes, I certainly do distinguish between between *belief* and *acceptance* because the former doesn't require evidence whereas the latter does.... And remember that Webster doesn't always get it right.

It is normally the word "faith" that is used for "... without evidence". Or sometimes "hope".

I use "believe" for something I have a degree of confidence in but no proof. "I believe that the next time I use the brake pedal it will slow the car". "I believe the meeting is next Tuesday, but I'll have to check". (Others may disagree with this usage).

I wonder if people are being over-cautious here? Remember that Creationists will quote-mine and distort WHATEVER is said, so I doubt if ANY form of words be safe from them. What is surely important is to convey the pleasure of science and confidence in its explanatory power (sooner or later) to an audience that isn't as pedantic as we may be.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

30. Comment #178757 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 2:21 am

A responder to a post about religion and evolution on Townhall once wrote to me saying that, "if I was evolving, I'd think I would know it". To which my immediate response was, "clearly you're not as evidenced by your post".

My point: as this subject articulates, if we need to point to the obvious evidence of evolution, look no further than your own life existence.

Everything, everywhere, at all times is evolving and developing. Change and shift are constant and current, there is no stopping it.

Yet, this obvious fact of observation is lost on those who "believe".

"ACCEPT" is a good substitution for "believe" when speaking of evolution. Perhaps "development" might be a good substitution for "evolution".

Other Comments by scooternyc

31. Comment #178768 by mmurray on May 12, 2008 at 2:42 am

Given the countless examples of scientists being correct when they say something is a fact (I'm thinking engineering, medical advances, etc.), I think it is rather reasonable to expect the masses to trust the word of scientists. By all means, check it out independently, but trsuting scientists, especially when there is no tentative semantics or throngs of critics and doubters involved, is surely not irrational?

aussieatheist_111 -- assuming you are an aussie check out some of the things people are saying about the recent showing of Richard Dawkin's two-part series on new-age therapies and other mumbo-jumbo. Some are sensible but for other people trusting scientists is not on. They would much rather concentrate on the few examples of scientist being wrong!

http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/MessageList.aspx?b=81&t=1&te=False

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

32. Comment #178828 by mordacious1 on May 12, 2008 at 5:43 am

I wonder if it is the scientists (especially in the medical field) who are saying such and such is a fact, then saying no it's the reverse, or is it the press who words articles incorrectly to sell their product. A good example was the USA Today piece about the Platypus, posted on this site, part reptile, part mammal, and part bird, or something similar. What nonsense. It wasn't until the Nature article was posted that one could get a clear view of what the scientists were saying. USA Today made it sound like we had a "crocoduck" on our hands.

Other Comments by mordacious1

33. Comment #178829 by Johnny O on May 12, 2008 at 5:43 am

To believe in something takes faith, trust, effort, strength.

Oh no...

I need none of these things to believe evolution

WOO-HOO!!! I was worried there. What an excellent article.

Other Comments by Johnny O

34. Comment #178835 by RobDinsmore on May 12, 2008 at 6:06 am

After a degree in Mathematical Physics, a career as an engineer, and decades of pleasure from reading about science (many books each year, New Scientist each week, etc), I am still cautious about what scientists say!

As you should be, but more so towards individual scientists and not the aggregate. On average science gets things right and it is OK to take some of it on "faith" (accepting their analysis to be reasonable and their understanding of previous works to be sufficient that they do not contradict any fundamental physics etc) because it takes way too much effort to be a specialist in this day and age.

Yes most of the population is grossly ignorant about fundamental science. It would be nice if they could be taught to trust the scientific community as a whole. There are millions of us out here now and many millions in the past and future that put countless lifetimes of work into painting the most consistent picture of the universe and constantly improving it. People should be made aware of the shear magnitude of work that goes into science, and that is where society is failing.

Other Comments by RobDinsmore

35. Comment #178852 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 6:36 am

I like Proust's comment about the medical profession, which went something like, "You'd be a fool to believe in doctors - and you'd be an even bigger fool not to."

Other Comments by keith

36. Comment #178857 by squinky on May 12, 2008 at 6:48 am

Mordacious,

You nailed it. Lame, pseudo-literary science crap that always seems to get airtime on NPR.
Evolution simply is the truth. Here's the litmus test: if all human beings were dead, what would still be happening. For what it's worth, I believe gravity, it keeps me grounded.

Here, allow me to plagiarize Ms. Dunsworth and try some NPR-esque saccharine-sweet 'this I believe'. Tell me if you're inspired:

"I believe in atoms and molecules. It's easy. They are my life. I'm a chemist. I study molecules and how they combine to make things from drugs to shampoo, and I teach students about their place in nature and their usefulness.

Of course I believe molecules.

But that is different from believing in molecules.

To believe in something takes faith, trust, effort, strength. I need none of these things to believe molecules. They just are. My health is better because of medical research based on molecules. My genetic code is a polymer made of them. My bipedal feet walk on Nike's made from them and well as everything under them for that matter (no pun intended). And when my feet tire, those molecules fuel my car.

Yuch.

Other Comments by squinky

37. Comment #178865 by morgantj on May 12, 2008 at 7:03 am

Lovely, even poetic.

Other Comments by morgantj

38. Comment #178872 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 7:16 am

Of course I believe molecules.

I don't know if it's just a stylistic thing, but something near my ear shuddered when I read the above sentence. Surely something, like the word 'exist', should come after 'molecules'? As it stands, it sounds like molecules actually talk to us.

(I have just had a nauseating premonition that someone is going to write, "Well, you know Keith, in a metaphorical way, molecules really do talk to us." Please don't be that person).

Other Comments by keith

39. Comment #178883 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 7:34 am

RobDinsmore said: Yes most of the population is grossly ignorant about fundamental science. It would be nice if they could be taught to trust the scientific community as a whole.... People should be made aware of the shear magnitude of work that goes into science, and that is where society is failing.

It may be that this occurs best when a topic becomes the subject of legislation.

For example, in the UK debate in Parliament has just started on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It has a considerable "yeuk!" factor, (eg. "certain types of embryo which contain both human and animal DNA"), but I don't detect a public uproar against it. In fact, I think many people are more enlightened than (especially) the Catholic Church. It has been extensively covered in the press, with top scientists explaining what the advantages are. Perhaps the general public can only handle a few such topics per year.

I don't think the population of the UK is ready automatically to trust what the scientific community says without such information. It IS a fact that failures of science hit the headlines periodically. ALSO, on various topics, the public gets contradictory advice. (Wine - good or bad. Eggs - good or bad. Beef - good or bad. Organic food - good or bad. Hygiene in the home - good or bad. Mobile phones - good or bad. MMR - good or bad. Badger culls - good or bad).

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

40. Comment #179055 by STLstrike3 on May 12, 2008 at 1:07 pm