Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Opening minds
by Sue Blackmore - Guardian
Thanks to Derek for the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/04/religion.evolution
Opening minds
Those who teach our children science have a duty to reveal the workings of nature — even if it means challenging their faith
Sue Blackmore
Should science teachers in Britain challenge their students' religious beliefs? Is it their right? Is it even their duty?
I say yes. This is (amongst much else) what education is for; to teach children how to think for themselves. And thinking for yourself is challenging, especially if your previous beliefs were based on dogma and ancient books.
In his recent TV series, The Genius of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins visited a London secondary school, took a mixed bunch of kids out fossil hunting on the beach, and then came back to the school to talk to them and their teachers.
Some of what he discovered in his travels was truly shocking — like the science teacher who honestly believes that the world was created by God a few thousand years ago because the Bible tells him so. Some was less surprising, like the children who believe that humans are made in the image of God because their parents taught them so. Dawkins' response was to exhort people not to give undeserved respect to religious prejudices and to present lots of scientific evidence.
But many religious believers are simply not interested in evidence. I have now got used to debating with Muslims and Christians, but at my first meeting of the University of the West of England Islamic Society I simply couldn't believe that wonderful, detailed, scientific evidence was of no interest to them whatever. If something is in the Koran, they said, then no evidence changes anything.
What about understanding theories though? In my experience it is understanding, not evidence, that opens minds. If someone really understands how natural selection works then … gulp, jaw drop, stare, think … suddenly the world looks different. All previous ideas are thrown up in the air.
I guess this happened to me when I first read The Selfish Gene. I have seen it happen to many, many others in my lectures and classes.
It may seem odd to say so, but most people do not understand natural selection. Perhaps they never learnt about it at school, or perhaps they did understand it once but then forgot. I have explained it to intelligent students who assumed that they already understood it but when asked to explain it they could not. Darwin's great idea is so simple, and yet so slippery. So in case you are one of those, here it is in a nutshell — plants and animals produce far more (slightly varying) offspring than can possibly survive. Starvation, disease, predation, and unattractiveness mean that only a few go on to breed again. At each step the survivors pass on whatever adaptations helped them and so gradually they become better designed. You could call it "design by death". Like a human creating a sculpture by chipping away wood, nature's weeding-out is the force that creates new design.
Once you get it that's that! How can you go on believing that God created humans in his own image when you can see, because you really understand the principle, that nature's cruel and wasteful selective process can create all that design without him?
Well, I guess it's possible, but it's not as easy as burying your head in the sand over evidence. For example, some people claim that God put fossils there to deceive us, that scientists are wrong about carbon dating, and that evolution is "just a theory". None of this works if you really understand natural selection — you can still believe in God if you like but you can no longer claim that he is necessary to explain our existence.
This is why I think Dawkins should have emphasised understanding at least as much as evidence, and why I think teachers have a duty to do the same.
I don't mean that science teachers should belittle religious beliefs, or scoff at them, or even tell students they are wrong. They need not even mention religion or creationism. What they must do is explain so clearly how natural selection works that those students, like one or two in Dawkins' series, begin to feel the terrifying impact of what Darwin saw. This realisation will change them. It will challenge what mummy and daddy told them, it will cry out against what they heard in chapel or synagogue or mosque. It will help immeasurably in their ponderings on human nature, the origins of life and the meaning of existence. This is growing up. This is learning. This is the process that skilful science teachers need to initiate, encourage, and help sensitively to guide.
They should never shy away from challenging their students' religious beliefs and opening their minds, because understanding the world through science inevitably does just that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/04/religion.evolution
Opening minds
Those who teach our children science have a duty to reveal the workings of nature — even if it means challenging their faith
Sue Blackmore
Should science teachers in Britain challenge their students' religious beliefs? Is it their right? Is it even their duty?
I say yes. This is (amongst much else) what education is for; to teach children how to think for themselves. And thinking for yourself is challenging, especially if your previous beliefs were based on dogma and ancient books.
In his recent TV series, The Genius of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins visited a London secondary school, took a mixed bunch of kids out fossil hunting on the beach, and then came back to the school to talk to them and their teachers.
Some of what he discovered in his travels was truly shocking — like the science teacher who honestly believes that the world was created by God a few thousand years ago because the Bible tells him so. Some was less surprising, like the children who believe that humans are made in the image of God because their parents taught them so. Dawkins' response was to exhort people not to give undeserved respect to religious prejudices and to present lots of scientific evidence.
But many religious believers are simply not interested in evidence. I have now got used to debating with Muslims and Christians, but at my first meeting of the University of the West of England Islamic Society I simply couldn't believe that wonderful, detailed, scientific evidence was of no interest to them whatever. If something is in the Koran, they said, then no evidence changes anything.
What about understanding theories though? In my experience it is understanding, not evidence, that opens minds. If someone really understands how natural selection works then … gulp, jaw drop, stare, think … suddenly the world looks different. All previous ideas are thrown up in the air.
I guess this happened to me when I first read The Selfish Gene. I have seen it happen to many, many others in my lectures and classes.
It may seem odd to say so, but most people do not understand natural selection. Perhaps they never learnt about it at school, or perhaps they did understand it once but then forgot. I have explained it to intelligent students who assumed that they already understood it but when asked to explain it they could not. Darwin's great idea is so simple, and yet so slippery. So in case you are one of those, here it is in a nutshell — plants and animals produce far more (slightly varying) offspring than can possibly survive. Starvation, disease, predation, and unattractiveness mean that only a few go on to breed again. At each step the survivors pass on whatever adaptations helped them and so gradually they become better designed. You could call it "design by death". Like a human creating a sculpture by chipping away wood, nature's weeding-out is the force that creates new design.
Once you get it that's that! How can you go on believing that God created humans in his own image when you can see, because you really understand the principle, that nature's cruel and wasteful selective process can create all that design without him?
Well, I guess it's possible, but it's not as easy as burying your head in the sand over evidence. For example, some people claim that God put fossils there to deceive us, that scientists are wrong about carbon dating, and that evolution is "just a theory". None of this works if you really understand natural selection — you can still believe in God if you like but you can no longer claim that he is necessary to explain our existence.
This is why I think Dawkins should have emphasised understanding at least as much as evidence, and why I think teachers have a duty to do the same.
I don't mean that science teachers should belittle religious beliefs, or scoff at them, or even tell students they are wrong. They need not even mention religion or creationism. What they must do is explain so clearly how natural selection works that those students, like one or two in Dawkins' series, begin to feel the terrifying impact of what Darwin saw. This realisation will change them. It will challenge what mummy and daddy told them, it will cry out against what they heard in chapel or synagogue or mosque. It will help immeasurably in their ponderings on human nature, the origins of life and the meaning of existence. This is growing up. This is learning. This is the process that skilful science teachers need to initiate, encourage, and help sensitively to guide.
They should never shy away from challenging their students' religious beliefs and opening their minds, because understanding the world through science inevitably does just that.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, September 4, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 201 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #242856 by robotaholic on September 4, 2008 at 3:21 pm
right on! Other Comments by robotaholic
3. Comment #242857 by mummymonkey on September 4, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Good point but I wish she'd chosen a word other than design to make it.Other Comments by mummymonkey
4. Comment #242858 by BicycleRepairMan on September 4, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Hear! hear!As much as I admire Dawkins, I am in full agreeing with Sue Blackmore on this. A parable I use is that you can teach a child to say "3 plus 5 equals 8" but unless you teach them the old apples-in-the-basket example, you dont have any understanding, any old idiot can repeat a sentence , understanding the core principle is another matter.
By the way, like Mrs.Blackmore, I only fully understood the consept after reading "The Selfish Gene"
Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
5. Comment #242860 by Darwin's badger on September 4, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Good article, and from one who knows how seductive the lure of mysticism is. For those who don't know, Sue Blackmore had a dope-induced hallucination of an out-of-body experience and spent many years as a believer in the paranormal, only to discover that the more one examined it, the clearer it became that it didn't exist. She now spends her time using her powers for good instead of evil. :) Other Comments by Darwin's badger
6. Comment #242861 by righton on September 4, 2008 at 3:34 pm
"Teach the controversy" right???Other Comments by righton
7. Comment #242862 by righton on September 4, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Don't yell at me robot.Other Comments by righton
8. Comment #242863 by KrisRamJ on September 4, 2008 at 3:36 pm
...and yet, even in Britain we're getting more and more faith schools and other pandering drivel on a daily basis.
The situation isn't much better overseas. Watching the Republican National Committee the last few nights made me realise that it's highly likely that McCain will be elected & promptly die of old age, and then we'll have a worse fundy at the head of the free world than the current one, plus the educated young people who are behind Obama will lose hope in the political process, thus leaving the field wide open to the IDiots for another generation.
Or maybe I just need a nice sit down and a cup of sugary tea...
Other Comments by KrisRamJ
9. Comment #242868 by Border Collie on September 4, 2008 at 3:42 pm
If I happened to be a science teacher (I was a teacher), I think I'd start off by not even mentioning evolution or Darwin. I'd start off with agricultural plants and animals. I'd show the students dogs, corn, cattle, cotton, whatever. I'd show them the different breeds and I'd put those different breeds on an approximate time line of when they originated by artificial selective breeding. That would at least give them a mental picture of variation, the actuality of change in form, etc. I don't exactly know how I'd jump the next gap from artificial selection to natural selection, but I think it would be easier if the students, for example, knew how and when chihuahuas showed up on the planet. They're not in the B book or the Q book, so they must have gotten here by some natural process after those books were written. To me, it doesn't seem like much of a jump from artificial selection to natural selection. The hardheads would still ignore the evidence and they would still say 'But, it's still a dog and a dog can't change to a rhino or whatever' and all that, but it might be a start. I mean, the agricultural selective breeding was the first sort of 'evolution' that I was aware of and it really did make it just a baby step over into natural selection for me.Other Comments by Border Collie
10. Comment #242873 by eellerto on September 4, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I agree with Animavore. The evidence is what holds up the theory. I don't see how you can have one without the other, unless it is a hypothesis...which, as we know, is not what we mean by theory. But, I also agree that starting with the explanation of natural selection in other organisms besides humans is a good idea. It might prevent the initial knee-jerk reaction that stops people from listening. Other Comments by eellerto
11. Comment #242876 by mordacious1 on September 4, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I guess this article is saying the following in a round about way:Teach science, teach rational thinking and the rest will follow. Doesn't seem like a new idea.
Other Comments by mordacious1
12. Comment #242880 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on September 4, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Border Collie> interesting take, and one that might work.. I started (when I taught within my discipline, also read "before the other person with a decent knowledge of basic physics retired") with genetics and human variation, took the class for a walk in the nearby woods and had them examine plants and insects, brought in artificial selection from there (woods are rather scant.. city kids), and let their questioning from the walk as tied to artificial selection make the jump for me. Once you get the students to examine the diversity of life, and the fact that not everything can possibly succeed (refer back to bacterial cultures from cell bio unit here), the basis for natural selection becomes apparent. Having them do internet research on the phylogeny of some fairly charismatic organism (whales are a good choice here) introduces forms of evidence, which they then have to research in order to understand. I did find myself wishing I had more fossils for them to examine, or better yet some fossil beds and rock strata for them to see.Despite all this, those with a DEEPLY ingrained religious tendency have a hard time accepting that natural selection is a viable reason for human existence... the ego gets in the way (the quote from Bruce in the NY Times article from last week is a good representation of where that comes in).
Mordacious> It isn't, and it works... not sure why any of this should be earth shattering, other than the fact that it needs to start with the teachers themselves. I have colleagues (and had students in the university sci ed class I TAed) that simply refuse to accept the evidence for evolution. On the other hand, one of those also tried to convince me the Earth was flat, so there may only be so much you can do for flat out stupidity.
Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher
13. Comment #242883 by jshuey on September 4, 2008 at 4:42 pm
"Or maybe I just need a nice sit down and a cup of sugary tea..."
Better yet, an old claret with a wedge of Abondance.
Other Comments by jshuey
14. Comment #242884 by Dhamma on September 4, 2008 at 4:52 pm
You may call it a straw man, but if you tell a christian that the evolution is true, you're saying the bible is wrong. The bible clearly says the world was created in six days. There's no reason to believe the six days can be a metaphor for 3,5 billion years. If the evolution is true, then the bible is wrong. And we all know the evolution is true. Tough luck.
Other Comments by Dhamma
15. Comment #242888 by vesihiisi on September 4, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Teach children zen meditating.http://www.physorg.com/news139635145.html
Other Comments by vesihiisi
16. Comment #242890 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on September 4, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Dhamma> can't really argue with that... that's certainly how they view it. I also found, the last time I chose to beat my head against a brick wall and discuss this with a fundamentalist, that anything that says the bible is wrong suddenly becomes an ad hominem... It took me a couple of exchanges to discern why I was being accused of such attacks when I thought I had refrained from letting my frustration get the best of me.Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher
17. Comment #242894 by Laurie Fraser on September 4, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Interesting article, and a challenge to teachers. Where I work, in the New South Wales department of education, it has always been considered "unethical" to promote one's own political or religious opinions. I have always ignored this rule; I tell my students (sitting for their matriculation) that I will present them with ideas that I hold as "true", and will ask them to consider these, research the issues, formulate their own ideas, and debate me in class.These students are generally very intelligent, and find this challenge rewarding. In quite a few cases students have changed from being creationists to "evolutionists" (I know - a bit of a silly term) and in some cases have turned away from religion altogether. I have never had a student who is an atheist suddenly become religious as a result of their research.
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
18. Comment #242897 by Don_Quix on September 4, 2008 at 5:23 pm
the last time I chose to beat my head against a brick wall and discuss this with a fundamentalist, that anything that says the bible is wrong suddenly becomes an ad hominem...I happened to be thinking about this today. Many fundies (if not most of them) take any criticism, or even polite challenging, of their beliefs as a personal ad hominem attack on them personally. Pointing out any instance of inconsistencies or demonstrable lies in their beliefs or holy books is akin to hitting these people in the face with a shovel or saying extremely vulgar and vile things about their mother.
It's really hard for me to grasp, but occasionally I'm able to partially wrap my head around it, and I find it terrifying. It's completely crazy and irrational behavior, and you can't argue or reason with crazy.
Other Comments by Don_Quix
19. Comment #242900 by mordacious1 on September 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Hi LaurieYour method is probably better done at a level where the students are already adults. In an elementary setting, I'm not sure it would be OK. I don't want my daughter's 8th grade teacher telling her, "I hold creationism to be true, research it and get back to me with your thoughts". We'd be in the Superintendent's office the next morning.
Other Comments by mordacious1
20. Comment #242901 by Dhamma on September 4, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Infuriated: I pity you. Calling it an ad hominem would not just be wrong, but also not an argument for not debating it, anyway.Vesihiisi: I'm not sure Zen per se would be necessary, but meditation is something we truly need to adapt in the western society as it's been proven very useful. I will start doing it on a regular basis when I move close to a meditation-center. I'm eagerly looking forward to it as I've tried it before, and love the sensation.
Other Comments by Dhamma
21. Comment #242905 by Laurie Fraser on September 4, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Hi Mord, I agree. Such rules are right and proper in their place. Indeed, I have been in the principal's office on more than one occasion demanding that certain cretinist teachers be summarily crucified. True, I teach in an adult education environment. And I don't lambast students with my ideas. I tell them my ideas, and ask them to think about it. Leads to some *very* lively debates, let me tell you!
Edit: actually, Mord, if a creationist asked students to research that topic, that at least would be "educational", in a sense. The problem of course, is that at 8th grade level there is too great a disparity in social power between teacher and student. By the time they get to my level of education, they think teachers are open season. (And that's all for the good.)
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
22. Comment #242906 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on September 4, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Dhamma> no pity needed, I walked open-eyed into that mess... thanks anyway thoughOther Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher
23. Comment #242912 by Dhamma on September 4, 2008 at 5:44 pm
You're welcome, Infuriated!Hi there, Laurie! I bet those debates come with various things being tossed at you, as well!
I just had a discussion with an old friend, the only christian friend I have, and he got pretty pissed at me when I told him the evolution is true, no matter how much he denied it. I said there are tons of evidence(in contrast to evidence of god), but he was very suspicious.. I'll nail the bastard soon. Muahahaha!
Edited for some badly chosen words, and grammar. Again.. Maybe I should get some sleep instead. Or learn English.
Other Comments by Dhamma
24. Comment #242917 by Laurie Fraser on September 4, 2008 at 6:05 pm
No, don't change anything, Dhamma. I especially love it when you talk about "the" evolution. That's a nice, quirky foreign-language mannerism! Is it late evening in your part of the world?Edit: The only time an official complaint was made about my teaching methods was when a creationist nut-job couldn't take the pressure. He stormed into the college director's office demanding action. The director (who told me the story later) asked him what his complaint was. He said that I had been ridiculing his religious beliefs by suggesting that creationism was nonsense, and that I was insisting that evolution was true. The director weighed things up for a bit, then said: "Well, it seems to me Laurie's doing a damn fine job, in that case."
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
25. Comment #242918 by Darwin's Teapot on September 4, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I teach ESL in Korea. I have to say the english program here is a joke, but I have a feeling that science is taught with a bit of rigor. I am curious though as to how/if they teach evolution. More generally, I am curious how/if evolution is taught in the Asian world at all. I'd answer my own query, but my Korean is extremely weak. The country is 44% Catholic.www.darwinsteapot.blogspot.com
Other Comments by Darwin's Teapot
26. Comment #242919 by Dhamma on September 4, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Ha - Fair enough, Laurie! I had no idea it wasn't possible to use "the". If I instead would have said "..when I told him evolution is true", would that be correct? Or would I have to rephrase it? It doesn't sound correct in my head to drop the "the" :)
Yes, it's very late, it's 3 am. Occasionally when I've got nothing to do the day after, I stay up late! I've been to Australia, but I can't remember if it's morning or not now?
Edit: Ha - I'd love to see your smile after hearing that! Must've been an awfully nice feeling!
Other Comments by Dhamma
27. Comment #242920 by Hellene on September 4, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Try this one on for size. A physics teacher who shows "What the bleep do we know?" and quotes it in class as a source. Other Comments by Hellene
28. Comment #242925 by Dhamma on September 4, 2008 at 6:37 pm
It's pretty funny with languages as it becomes obvious when listening to foreigners of various languages speaking English what particular mistakes they make. I always here the French making their mistakes and the Swedes making their. I think the "the" for example could be because we always put "en" or "et" at the end of nouns. So I'd say "evolutionen är sann" in Swedish which I'd translate into "the evolution is true", because I can't say "evolution är sann". Well, I really need to learn it properly, but I'm too lazy!
Edit: The Swedish I wrote looks bizarre in my viewer.. I suppose it does in yours too. Maybe it's got to do with the script on RD.net?
Other Comments by Dhamma
29. Comment #242927 by Laurie Fraser on September 4, 2008 at 6:47 pm
11.30am here, Dhamma.there's lot's of cases in English where we drop the definite article "the", especially when we're talking about group or abstract nouns like "evolution".
Anyway, TTFN, gotta go.
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
30. Comment #242928 by kkelly on September 4, 2008 at 6:47 pm
27, holy bleepballs! Other Comments by kkelly
31. Comment #242929 by eclampusvitus on September 4, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Teach the controversy?Here's the controversy.
Creationists have no evidence for their dogmatic beliefs. Their conclusions are flawed by every reasonable thought process system. Their crusty revelations are entombed in the concrete of ignorance.
Science and reason offer mechanisms to understand nature. Flawed as we humans are, and flawed as our systems must be, science is demonstrable and subject (indeed bound) to improvement.
The adherence to superstitious dogma should be met with the same shame as the belief in ghosts, bridge trolls, and a hollow earth.
ECV
Other Comments by eclampusvitus
32. Comment #242931 by Frankus1122 on September 4, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Darwin's TeapotI am curious though as to how/if they teach evolution. More generally, I am curious how/if evolution is taught in the Asian world at all. I'd answer my own query, but my Korean is extremely weak. The country is 44% Catholic.
Then at least 44% should believe in evolution. I believe the official position of the Catholic Church is evolution is a fact; God helped direct it.
Whether or not that has anything to do with evolution being taught in the schools is another matter.
I know some evangelical Christians from Korea and they do not believe in evolution (despite one of them being a science teacher!).
Other Comments by Frankus1122
33. Comment #242932 by Hellene on September 4, 2008 at 7:00 pm
kkelly you rascal! Other Comments by Hellene
34. Comment #242933 by heafnerj on September 4, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Here in America, introductory university science courses aimed at the so-called "non-science" students leave out the most important thing: the science. Until these courses, ALL of them, start from the very beginning with the most fundamental concepts (e.g. belief vs. acceptance based on evidence, elementary logic, proper terminology, etc.) we will continue to turn out students who, after a university education, STILL don't know the difference between science and opinion. Students have to be led to confront their own beliefs, especially when those beliefs hinder their rationality. There are mounds of educational research documenting the failure of the current status quo, but the schools are deaf to anything that doesn't conform to the "herd hundreds of students into a lecture hall and talk AT them for three hours a week and pretend learning is happening" model. It's shameful and has to stop, or not. Other Comments by heafnerj
35. Comment #242937 by heafnerj on September 4, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Dhamma: Fundamentalists can't read their own Bible, which very clearly states that God initiated creation "in the beginning." There is no mention whatsoever of which day this process began. There is no confirmation it began on day 1. This realization tends to stop them in their tracks when I point it out.Don_Quix: I recommend The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism by Hood, Hill, and Williamson (Guilford Press, 2005) for insight on why fundamentalists link their very existence to what is written in the Bible (or at least their version of the Bible).
Other Comments by heafnerj
36. Comment #242941 by Don_Quix on September 4, 2008 at 7:45 pm
heafnerj:Thanks I'll check that out.
Other Comments by Don_Quix
37. Comment #242946 by prolibertas on September 4, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I think I agree with Blackmore. I've tried before to tell fundies the evidence, but it just doesn't have quite the impact you might hope. But tell them how evolution actually works, and they see more and more how it is just the logical consequence that you'd expect from things like climate change or the predator-prey phenomenon. At least they see that God isn't the only explanation, and that therefore complex life doesn't prove the existence of a designer.One thing that's always important, though, is to stress how natural selection is NOT random. Strangely, you can talk about climate change, predators vs. prey and so on 'til you're blue in the face, but unless you explicitly point out that this means natural selection is NON-RANDOM, they'll just keep throwing up the old 'evolution is just chance' misunderstanding, ad nauseum.
Other Comments by prolibertas
38. Comment #242948 by theonlybap on September 4, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I'm a sophomore at my university, and, for the first time in my life, a professor told the class to no longer believe anything, but introduce some skepticism and reach a state of "not believing" in every aspect of our lives.It was entertaining to see all the angry and confounded faces. I just wish I had had a professor like this earlier in my life.
Other Comments by theonlybap
39. Comment #242952 by Wolvan on September 4, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Well I married a *gulp* born again, Southern Baptist creationist. I tried for a long time to get wrigglers into her brain about how evolution works, and what the big bang was all about and every time I'd get glazed looks, and mumbling about science being boring and all that Jazz. She didn't care about 'transitional fossils' and 'mutating genes' and 'mathematical models'.And then one day we were watching the horrible, painfully bad remake of Godzilla, and there was this one scene where this lady is about to get stepped on and insted of running she just stood there screaming until of course she went splat. I laughed and made the off hand remark to my wife that it was natural selection at work, and I saw the thought click in her head. Everything changed almost overnight.
She just started drinking in everything I could throw at her about the evolution of the universe and life, and ended up taking a bunch of forensic anthro classes in school. While she's still a (non-church going) christian, she is no longer a creationist and has a new thirst for knowledge and understanding.
Some times its not the evidence that's important, because a lot of times they don't care, or the implications just go over their heads. As this article states the key is to find that one concept that they can wrap their head around and you've opened the door. I agree with this article completely, but unfortunately everyone's 'switch' is different.
Other Comments by Wolvan
40. Comment #242956 by mmurray on September 4, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I don't know why you guys are still all here. Once they hit the switch on the LHC next Wednesday it will all be over. You should be out partying :-)Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
41. Comment #242957 by hobar on September 4, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I'm having an interesting debate right now at Comingsoon.net (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=48527&offset=0) where they have announced a movie about Charles Darwin. Of course the comments section is strictly about evolution (it's wrong/it's right) but I ran in to one of those fun people who believes in evolution but is still religious.
So I wonder how hard this "switch" needs to be thrown. Wolvan, I might be debating your wife.
Other Comments by hobar
42. Comment #242961 by quantum_flux on September 4, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Teaching controversy is a good idea and would make for a very powerful lesson plan if done correctly. Ideally, then teachers could present the creationist rationalization, explain what is wrong with that line of reasoning, and then explain the true evolutionary or scientific principle. Other Comments by quantum_flux
43. Comment #242967 by helical4 on September 4, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I'm reading a book called "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore. Is this the same person?
EDIT: It is.
Other Comments by helical4
44. Comment #242968 by Kimpatsu on September 4, 2008 at 10:12 pm
@Darwin's Teapot:
Is the 44% figure akin to the 100% of Japanese who are Buddhist, 100% of Japanese who are Shinto, 100% of Japanese who are Xian... Because when the Japanese say they "belong" to that religion, what they really mean is that they utilise certain ceremonies from those religions during certain rites of passage; Xian weddings (which are not conducted by ordained priests, BTW), Buddhist funerals, etc.
As to the teaching of evolution, there are no religious objections, but the average Japanese person's understanding is not very deep, and is often garbled, because without sufficient reinforcement, the default human presupposition of solipistic teleology takes over. I doubt that much is different next door in the Hermit Kingdom.
Other Comments by Kimpatsu
45. Comment #242970 by Rational_Skeptic on September 4, 2008 at 10:27 pm
quantum_flux: teaching controversy is a great idea providing there is in fact a controversy to teach. Science has already demonstrated via overwhelming evidence over 150 years that evolution by natural selection is fact: as much fact as can be determined using scientific method. Creationism is dogma, not science, and therefore does not belong in any respectable science curriculum. Did you not read any of Prof. Dawkins' books, or am I missing something in your assertion? Other Comments by Rational_Skeptic
46. Comment #242974 by hobar on September 4, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I believe quantum_flux is talking about the controversy caused by the arguments against evolution and the lovely debates this has created. I'm sure most everyone here holds evolution as fact. quantum_flux seems to want to start with something they know (that can be proven to be false or, at least, faulty) and show them why it is...stupid. Other Comments by hobar
47. Comment #242976 by quantum_flux on September 4, 2008 at 10:59 pm
"The Secular Genesis"
In the beginning a probability density created the Multiverse and this Universe. This universe was without form and void and the black hole was hovering over space-time. Then an instability point was reached via Hawking radiation causing a big bang and tons of electromagnetic radiation! And over eons of time there formed matter within the space-time and the matter separated out into planets and stars and galaxies within the space-time and it was good.
At about 8 billion years ABB (after big bang) the Earth was formed and there was RNA and single celled photosynthesizing organisms and there was fusion in the stars to the third generation, and it was good! Then, by the forces of evolution, the cells gradually turned into plants and animals of all kinds over millions of years. Then came man and the hominid species, the first intelligent life with the capability of rational thought, and mankind was to cultivate the Earth and conquer the forces of nature, and so it happened. And it seemed as though the rest of the universe was sleeping or non-evolved yet because it was taking so long for evolution to happen for the emergence of mankind and there was no other signs of life to be detected in the universe either, so mankind dreamed up the spiritual realm and gave up on the pursuit of knowledge for a millennium, which thereby plunged mankind into the depravity of the dark ages and nearly brought the complete extinction of all of humanity.
But, that was for a time, but by the sheer willpower of the few whom were rational and brave enough to speak out against these dogmatic Papal crimes against the human intellect the world has gained the freedom and the technical know-how to conquer the dark forces of extinction of our very own species. Our human salvation is completely within our own willpower and rational capabilities, but only if we continue to fight against the pure evils of human ignorance and the peer pressure of the dogmas and authority figures of past times can we come to know of an existence that is unbounded by presumption, of an existence where all things can be understood by scientific theories that have come purely by objective observations and are based on the sound foundations of mathematical rigor. In that existence, all things of physical nature can be understood under a grand unified theory, and all possibilities can be considered, weighed, and then decided upon by the consensus of the most elite of humanity as per was elected by the properly educated masses of the human race and that of all other intelligent beings in the universe.
Other Comments by quantum_flux
48. Comment #242977 by Barry Pearson on September 4, 2008 at 11:16 pm
In my experience it is understanding, not evidence, that opens mindsI don't see how it is even possible to evaluate the evidence without a basic understanding.
It is a bit like the difference between examining one piece of a jigsaw puzzle in isolation, versus evaluating it in the context of an emerging picture.
Without at least understanding the basic model of the evolutionary tree and common descent, and the basic process of natural selection, what does any bit of evidence actually mean?
#242884 by Dhamma: You may call it a straw man, but if you tell a christian that the evolution is true, you're saying the bible is wrong.Lots of Christians accept evolution.
It isn't "evolution versus belief in God". It is "evolution versus Bible literalism". It is a distinction worth making to any anti-evolutionist.
Although when I have tried this, it turns into a "no TRUE Christian believes in evolution" discussion! Being an atheist, I'm not very good at defending "TRUE Christianity"!
#242929 by eclampusvitus: Creationists have no evidence for their dogmatic beliefs.Yes, they do! But there are typically 2 standards for evidence in these discussions:
"Scientific standards": used for delivering the understanding of the universe that gives us major technological benefits in the modern world. By these standards, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution.
"Creationist standards": used to judge that a few pages of text written nearly 4000 years ago are more accurate than modern science. By these standards, there is no evidence for evolution.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
49. Comment #242979 by clodhopper on September 4, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Comment #242976 by quantum_flux
.....and it was good
er....and it was alright, if you like that sort of thing?
Other Comments by clodhopper
50. Comment #242981 by quantum_flux on September 4, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Wise folks anchor their beliefs on the sound foundation of mathematical logic and use the established scientific method for discovery, while foolish people anchor their beliefs on the authority figures of current or previous times. Other Comments by quantum_flux
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #242855 by Animavore on September 4, 2008 at 3:20 pm
EDIT: Correction of spelling and added more detail.
Other Comments by Animavore