…and this is a 
Do you believe in evolution ... and why?
Category: Creationism
Posted on: August 8, 2008 8:32 PM, by PZMinion
Greetings, fellow minions. Sastra OM, here, belatedly logging in as guest blogger #4. My smooth entry into the blogosphere was temporarily delayed by my fierce objections to signing Seed's contract, which to my horror appeared to involve some sort of ritualized Cthulhu chanting to the Elder Gods. Turns out it simply needed reformatting. My bad.
Unlike some of the other guest bloggers this week, I do NOT have a strong background in biology and impressive credentials from prestigious universities and research labs. Instead, I have a BA in English Lit from Western Illinois University (everybody go OOooo) and a passing familiarity with various skeptic and atheist organizations and issues.
So I am starting out my guestblogging by passing on a link to a survey on the public understanding of evolution from Michael Shermer's Skeptic Society at Cal Tech. It's part of a study they're doing "on general knowledge of and beliefs about evolution," and it only takes a few minutes. So, by the powers of Pharyngula invested in me, I command you go forth. Only if you feel like it, of course.
http://www.evolutionsurvey.com/
One thing I found particularly interesting (and challenging) about this survey was that it
requires essay answers, instead of the usual multiple choice. Good choice. I think that approach is more likely to get down to the nitty gritty of what and how people actually think.
First question: "To the best of your understanding and in your own words, please explain what 'evolution' means." And you may enter up to 1001 characters. Just like a test.
How easily can you do it - summarize the theory of evolution while being brief, accurate, and even eloquent, just off the top of your head? In your "own words?" I found it a bit difficult myself.. I wasn't sure where to start, what to put in, and what to leave out. I was also concerned about getting terms right, and not making a sloppy or fatal mistake.( I hated exams, too.)
The next question is more personal: "If you accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why; if you do not accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why not." And another whopping 1001 character limit. They then have you select your education level, religious belief, location, age, ethnicity, sex, and so forth.
I find that I usually try to "psych out" the goals of any survey I take, partly to know how I'm supposed to interpret any ambiguous questions, and partly out of curiosity. What are they expecting to discover: what are they trying to isolate? What would I expect to find? The big payoff in any study, I think, is being surprised by the result.
One of the interesting results of a similar survey on religious belief - also done by Shermer - was that people of faith have a strong tendency to think that other people believe in God because that's what they were taught as children - but that they themselves had used reason and evidence to evaluate and confirm their views. I would have expected their rose-colored interpretation of God's convincing evidence would have been extended to other believers as well. I'm not sure what interesting bits will come out of this one.
Here it looks like Dr. Shermer is once again seeking to dig beneath the statistics and try to understand the psychology behind them -- "why smart people believe weird things." The most obvious thing they may be looking for is to see if the people who accept evolution understand it, and the people who don't, don't. I think that's a reasonable prediction. It might be especially useful to see what types of errors creationists are making. But I can think of a lot of other possibilities they might be exploring. I suppose it depends on how closely they're going to look at and dissect the answers.
Do evolutionists - or atheists - approach the questions differently than creationists/theists? Is one side more likely to use narrative, or focus on mechanism? Does the process of science get emphasized, or only the particulars of evidence? What about when you look at sex? Or country? Are there consistent distinctions?
And for the second question, on WHY you do (or don't) accept evolution, they could also separate the answers according to different criteria. There would be answers that were personal, and answers that are impersonal. Emotional motivations vs. factual conclusions; authority vs. self-discovery; consequences vs. process. You could also look to see which side, if any, was more verbose. Or used ALL CAPS. One could have all sorts of fun and games sorting the data.
On the issue of science and religion, there are presumably 3 basic groups here: theistic creationists, theistic evolutionists, and atheistic evolutionists (if there's a 4th group of 'atheistic creationists,' that might set off its own new survey.) What sorts of distinctions would you expect to find? What would surprise you? It will be interesting to compare what the different groups think - and how they think -- about evolution, when the results are out, and no doubt summarized in the very excellent Skeptic Magazine (a plug).
Good luck then to the Skeptic Society, and sympathies to the poor grad students and flunkies who are going to have to wade through and categorize what will probably be multiple complex factors teased out of a lot of complicated and long-winded essays.
Now then - what answers did you give? To start you off, here are my own (and now that I look at them again I see they certainly could have been better):
To the best of your understanding, and in your own words, please explain what "evolution" means.
Descent with modification, through replication -- variation -- and selection. Through a simple, mindless, algorithmic process, plants and animals have become more complex by adapting over time to fit their environment; those which were slightly better adapted tended to leave more offspring, and pass on the slight changes in their genes.
If you accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why; or if you do not accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why not.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation for the evidence across many disciplines, and has generated testable hypotheses, made successful predictions, withstood stringent criticism, and today forms the underlying basis for our understanding of how living things got to be the way they are. It is the overwhelming consensus of expert opinion, and is constantly being modified and improved. Scientists do not "believe" in evolution: they use it, and accept it because it continues to work.
Ok. Your turn.
Comments
Posted by: Derek K. Miller | August 8, 2008 9:03 PM
Evolution and natural selection are different things. Lots of evidence for both, but there have been alternate mechanisms proposed to explain the evidence of evolution from fossils, genomes, and so on.
I doubt that distinction will make much difference to the results, however.
Posted by: A Rice | August 8, 2008 9:06 PM
Shortest definition of Evolution, in my own words: Evolution = Change/Time or E=C/T
Posted by: JoJo | August 8, 2008 9:15 PM
Here's a working link to http://www.evolutionsurvey.com/.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 8, 2008 9:17 PM
In a nutshell and in Darwin's own words: descent with modification. Because I am trained in molecular biology and genetics I am especially cognizant of the molecular evidence for descent with modification; it is several orders of magnitude more than the minimum that would be needed to be completely conclusive. There are few if any things in science about which there is less room for informed doubt.
Posted by: scooter | August 8, 2008 9:18 PM
When I was in Jr High our teacher had a model of a backbone. He said it was an amazing strusture, and laid it horizontally between to blocks (like a bridge) and then he demonstrated how firm it was by pounding on it with his fist. It hardly moved at all.
Then he picked it up and held it vertically, from the bottom and it waggled about in a most ridiculous fashion.
This, he explained, is why so many people have back problems, the spine evolved to be horizontal.
That convinced me 100%.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 8, 2008 9:20 PM
P.S. And yes scientists most certainly do "believe" in evolution. I must again object to the denigration of that harmless and useful, nay indispensable word. Do not confuse beliefs in general with only unjustified beliefs. It's the latter we should strive to avoid.
Posted by: Fifi | August 8, 2008 9:20 PM
Sastra,
I do not believe in the theory of evolution.
I have trust in the theory of evolution.
Meaning that, if a great doubt about it were to down on me, I would be able to pick up biology where I left it (in high-school) and go by myself verify the many evidences that support it.
As they say "Trust. Trust and verify".
But you can't do that with belief.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 8, 2008 9:21 PM
Hi fellow guest-blogger, and welcome aboard! It's nice to have another non-biologist doing the writing. (And don't get me started on narratives...that's my dissertation shit!)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 8, 2008 9:24 PM
There are a multitude of reasons but the #1 reason for me is easy. My Grandfather.
My grandfather is the single most influential person in my life. I grew up in awe of him. He was an ecological entomologist who had made a name for himself as a professor at NC State University. Throughout my childhood every vacation I spent with him in the agricultural fields around Raleigh, NC or in the North Carolina mountains near the Linville Gorge were a science lesson. I can't count how many times we would be on a hike and he would stop to pick up an insect or point out a plant species, name its scientific name and then go into detail about how this little critter or plant made its way through its life. As I got older and school projects started to come in I always counted on him to help. We'd go out hunting bees and when we found one he'd reach out, grab it while being stung unmercifully and calmly place it in a glass tube for me.
Once I was old enough to begin understanding we would have much deeper discussions on science and eventually evolution (and philosophy but that's another subject). Being that he was an "bug guy", we spent a lot of time on insects but did not solely focus on them. These talks / walks provided the basis for my future entry into NC State ecosystems assessment program in the Department of natural resources and life long appreciation of science.
Continuing I find the science of evolution a much more plausible explanation for the bio diversity on this planet in a large part because my first teacher made the learning process so thorough and understandable and trustworthy.
The science just falls into place after that.
as a side note, Ken Miller did a lecture at a series in my grandfather's honor a few years back (E.O. Wilson was the first guest lecturer). That was quite the proud day for moi.
Posted by: BMcP | August 8, 2008 9:26 PM
My definition would be: Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next through natural selection.
Years ago, I was a Young Earth Creationist, mainly because that was what taught to me by my church and I figured that they must be telling the truth. My YEC views was also a testament to the lack of real science education in public schools as evolution wasn't covered in such a way to challenge me to think about it seriously.
Later I became an Old Earth Creationist as through my own readings I came to the conclusion that the Earth being a few thousand years old was absurd in light of the evidence (one of my first science loves was geology). I was however still cool towards evolution.
Starting a couple years back I really started to look at evolution as a result of debates of myself and YECs who would call me an "evolutionist" for not accepting a 6000 year old Earth. Because I felt the term was nothing more then some misapplied insult, I started to look more deeply what evolution really meant versus the universal application creationists used it for (in regards to geology, cosmology, etc). The more I read the more fascinated I became, reading about evolution in an open way really challenged my view of how we came to be, and that encouraged me further out of curiosity. The more I read the more I realized that most creationists were lying about the theory and the evidence behind it. This angered me, I felt lied to and decided I really want to truly understand evolution versus what people just say and decide for myself the validity of it's claims. Through study and time I learned that the evidence indeed overwhelmingly points to evolution as the reason why life on Earth is the way it is and I now find myself staunchly defending it.
Posted by: JimboB | August 8, 2008 9:27 PM
"I have a BA in English Lit from Western Illinois University (everybody go OOooo)"
OOoooo!
Posted by: Sastra | August 8, 2008 9:27 PM
Thanks, MAJeff. I think I finally figured out how to imbed the link, too.
The title of the post, by the way, is not mine: it was how the survey was introduced on eSkeptic.
I notice that the word "believe" was exchanged for the more accurate word "accept" in the actual question, though.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 8, 2008 9:31 PM
Oh and Good to have you "in charge" for a bit Sastra! Well deserved!
Posted by: JustAsItSounds | August 8, 2008 9:34 PM
Have to join in and quibble with the phrase 'believe in evolution'.
I accept the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution as the best explanation of the fact of evolution as evinced by the fossil record, nested homology, genetic evidence and observations of speciation. Saying one 'believes' in it, to me, just shores up the creationist idea that scientific fact and theory are just matters of 'faith' and that reality somehow conforms to what one wants to be true.
... and then I read the rest of the entry. Sorry, nothing to see here, move on.
Posted by: Sharon | August 8, 2008 9:37 PM
Because I was trying to be totally honest, as I saw it, my answer to #2 was in two parts. First I said that the available evidence supports evolution, and while I hadn't read ALL the papers/books I have read some and it was a compelling argument.
Then I said I accept the theory of evolution because I trust the professors who taught it to me. Because I HAVEN'T read everything, and I'm not an intellectual giant. At some point, I just have to trust that my bio teachers and professors were not full of crap.
Well, not exactly those words. (and sorry if this makes no sense, I'm trying to type while watching the Opening Ceremonies)
Posted by: Danio | August 8, 2008 9:37 PM
Yay Sastra,OM! So glad to have you on Team Minion.
Posted by: The MadPanda | August 8, 2008 9:40 PM
Hi, Sastra!
(ahem) Ooooooooooo! (/ahem)
Heartiest congratulations on your brevet promotion, and the same hopes for a peaceful term of service that I've pitched to the rest of your team.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 8, 2008 9:40 PM
Goddamit, people, please acquire some philosophical background and get over this bullshit idea that there's something wrong with the concept of "belief". One of the standard definitions of epistemology is "the study of justified belief". Every time somebdy comes out with this "belief is for creationists" nonsense it's like chalk on a blackboard.
Posted by: Mena | August 8, 2008 9:41 PM
You went to WIU too? My degree is in Geology/Biology. Should I ask when you went there or will I feel old? ;^)
Posted by: JoJo | August 8, 2008 9:49 PM
I accept evolution for two reasons:
1. The only formal training I've had in biology was in high school ever so many years ago. I've done some reading about it, mainly science popularizations. The vast majority of biologists accept evolution and I tend to trust professionals when they're talking about their particular expertise. I'm a trained and experienced nuclear engineer. I expect a biologist to believe me when I tell him or her about how a nuclear reactor works. I grant the same courtesy to biologists' knowledge of their field.
2. Evolution makes sense. It appears straightforward and elegant. Plus it's falsifiable, that makes it science. Miracles aren't falsifiable, so goddidit isn't science.
Posted by: CJO | August 8, 2008 9:54 PM
The differential survival of imperfectly replicating forms competing for resources in a limiting environment. As long as the terms apply, there's no stopping it. I also believe in convection currents and erosion, which are no different in their physico-logical necessity. It's only the denial that makes "belief" sound more appropriate to the case of evolution.
Posted by: Aaron | August 8, 2008 9:54 PM
@#2
While your equations sounds correct when read out loud, mathematically, it states that as time gets bigger, changes over time will become smaller meaning there is less diversity over time instead of more.
A less poetic option would have evolution = changes * time. This way if changes or time increases, the entire term increases and there is more diversity. It can be read as "evolution equals the product of change and time."
Posted by: ngong | August 8, 2008 10:00 PM
Evolution = slightly sloppy replication.
Posted by: robbrown | August 8, 2008 10:01 PM
I agree that "belief" is a generic word simply meaning that one is convinced of something. Even the word "faith" is maligned sometimes; it often means "to be convinced of something without hard, direct evidence" rather than "without any evidence at all" (i.e. "I have faith that my wife is not sleeping with the mailman" might mean that while you may not have a spy cam tracking her, you know her well enough to think it is very unlikely she'd do such a thing)
Another thing that gets on my nerves is people who want to make a big deal of the difference between "evolution" and "evolution by natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin and now accepted by mainstream science". Come on, you know what we mean. Only in certain rare contexts is there a difference.
Posted by: Phiwilli | August 8, 2008 10:01 PM
I do not believe IN evolution. "Believing in" something calls for a leap of faith. No leap of faith is required for evolution; it just is, since the evidence is overwhelming. I don't believe IN my car, or gravity, or that I'm posting a comment now. I believe those things, I don't believe IN them.
See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90311455
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 8, 2008 10:05 PM
AARGH
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
Posted by: lylebot | August 8, 2008 10:08 PM
I guess I am similar, because I couldn't resist pointing out that "evolution" doesn't necessarily have to mean biological evolution (since that wasn't actually specified in the question). "Evolution" is just change over time.(I gave a serious answer after that though.)
Posted by: Zurahn | August 8, 2008 10:14 PM
I wish surveys would take more time on the questions; some of those were just oddly worded, making the answer options insufficient
How confident are you that you understand the scientific theory of evolution?
I'm not confident in my knowledge base (there's a LOT I don't know), but I'm completely confident in my understanding of the basic principles thereof, and the definition of it.
Do you believe there is a God?
This should be a Yes/No question because it's "belief." The answers are to a question of "Is there a God?" not "Do you believe...?"
Do I believe? Definitely no.
Is there a God? Very likely no.
Posted by: JM Inc. | August 8, 2008 10:15 PM
Shit, this is harder than it seemed it would be. I've used up 751 characters explaining the origin of Darwin's idea and its historical and cultural context, especially its relations to the writings of Malthus. I really need to work on my wordcounts.
Posted by: chgo_liz | August 8, 2008 10:16 PM
I also gave a simple "change over time" type answer. Because I am not a scientist, I saw no reason to prove the depths of my ignorance about the details.
Posted by: Dan Klarmann | August 8, 2008 10:19 PM
Which theory of evolution? Environmental (natural) selection? Punctuated equilibrium? Gradualism? Erratic gradualism? Sexual selection? Macro- implied by Micro-evolution? Lysenkoism? "Darwinism" (whatever that is)?Surely not that it happens? It has been observed in many ways and contexts. The fact of evolution is explained by many overlapping and sometimes conflicting theories (depending on context).
I believe in the scientific method eventually winnowing down to a comprehensive theory of evolution to explain the fact of evolution, probably in terms largely present in the currently competitive theories.
Or am I overthinking?
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 8, 2008 10:27 PM
I'm also not from a science background (BA in Communications) so I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of evolution - though I've recently learned a vast amount from reading the posts here and the pages people have linked to.
But, for me, it makes sense. Fossils, speciation, DNA, the age of the earth, selective breeding, inherited characteristics - all support evolution, and are simple enough concepts for anyone to be able to grasp enough to know that evolution explains life on our planet.
Posted by: JoJo | August 8, 2008 10:32 PM
Me too. I'll be the first to admit I know very little about biology and what I know isn't rigorous.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 8, 2008 10:37 PM
I think it's a mistake to say you "believe" in evolution, only because creationists will use that to try and claim evolution is some kind of religion. Saying you "accept the fact" of evolution is more accurate and avoids that vulnerability.
I took the survey, and I'll see if some family members will as well. They're "theistic evolutionists", so maybe their answers will help the quest for insight.
Glad to have you as a guest blogger, Sastra, along with the others. PZ knows how to pick 'em.
Posted by: S.Scott | August 8, 2008 10:41 PM
Sorry PZMinion ... I'm going OT for a moment, please forgive me. ERV has a link to a poll over at her place -
"Poll Question:
Who would win in a free-for-all, anything-goes cage match?"
and Pz is in 2nd place behind Christopher Hitchens!
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/08/skeptic_cage_match.php
Carry on and I apologize for the interruption.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 8, 2008 10:44 PM
Do you believe that you have a head? If you don't you are a very strange person.
Yet one more time, do not confuse the concept of "belief" with unfounded beliefs. I don't care what creationists will say, they shouldn't be handed the power to abuse the English language and perfectly sensible English words.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
Posted by: BriansAWildDowner | August 8, 2008 10:49 PM
The question just asks what evolution means. So are we supposed to explain just what the word evolution means, or the theory of evolution?
Posted by: mothwentbad | August 8, 2008 10:56 PM
I believe in evolution because it's a tautology.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 8, 2008 10:59 PM
Steve, I get your point. But every time I acknowledge a "belief" in evolution, a creationist attacks it as a religion. In theory, you're right. In practice, it doesn't help. There are enough things to try and ram into a creationists thick skull without having to add the correct definition of "belief" to the mix.
I'm not a philosopher or a etymologist, so the preservation of the strict definition isn't my primary goal.
Posted by: LisaJ | August 8, 2008 11:02 PM
Hi Sastra! Nice to have you on board. Great first post.
I definitely accept evolution. Why? Because it just makes sense. When you put your mind to it, how can you not accept it?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 8, 2008 11:03 PM
Better you should educate them about the fact that beliefs can be more or less well founded, and how one goes about justifying a belief. I doubt that you're impressing them at all with the weird circumlocutions needed to avoid the word.
Posted by: Sastra | August 8, 2008 11:04 PM
Mena #19 wrote:
Class of '78. I am one month older than PZ. Is PZ old?
Not if he's almost winning a "free for all, anything goes cage match" with Christopher Hitchens, he's not.
Posted by: amphiox | August 8, 2008 11:04 PM
Dan Klarmann, all the mechanisms you lists, with the exception of Lysenkoism, may be considered part of a larger theoretical framework which scientists call "the theory of evolution." Big scientific theories are assembled from little scientific theories.
Steve LaBonne, I agree with you on the meaning of belief. For a true, justified belief, I prefer to just use the term "knowledge." So I don't say "I believe in evolution," but prefer "I know of evolution," and leave it at that.
On the other hand, I've always believed that since English is a living language, the definitions of its terms depends on current usage. So whatever the majority of people who use a term want it to mean when they use it, and understand it to mean when they encounter it, is the actual meaning of the word. So if the common understanding of the term "belief" has shifted through popular usage to include only concepts without or pending justification, then I think you and I are stuck with it, unless you can manage to convince a new majority otherwise.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 8, 2008 11:07 PM
That may land you in some difficulties with Prof. Gettier. ;)Posted by: Eric Saveau | August 8, 2008 11:08 PM
I do not believe in evolution. I recognize the fact of evolution. "Belief" does not enter into it.
I've noticed that saying this tends to freak out religious types a little.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | August 8, 2008 11:10 PM
Nice link Sastra. Thanks for posting this. If this keeps up PZed may have a struggle on his hands wresting is blog back from you guest bloggers! :-)
Posted by: Jeremy | August 8, 2008 11:11 PM
Steve@41:
I prefer other approaches to debunking their myths. Arguing over the etymology of "belief" doesn't serve that goal except in an indirectly philosophical manner. Most of the people I argue with can't comprehend how natural selection would favor longer necks in giraffes, much less the intricacies of philosophical discourse.
When dealing with idiots, you have to talk to them at their level. Things like "giraffe with long neck can reach food better, so it live and have babies, who then also have long necks...short neck giraffes starve and die and no have babies". Attempting anything more complicated than that is bound to confuse the hell out of them. Hell, the giraffe statement confuses the hell out of them. It's really sad.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 8, 2008 11:15 PM
To the first question I answered, "Evolution is the means by which life solves the riddle of staying alive." My answers to the rest of the questions more or less follow . . .
More important is that I do not believe in evolution. But first let me tell you what I do believe.
I believe my mother loved me when I was born and continues to do so. I believe that my father thought long and hard about what to teach me. I believe things like that. Things for which I have not tangible evidence. No means of proof. Only my memory and my stories. This is evidence enough for me but is not scientifically sufficient. Fine by me! Like a true believer (blush), I know what I know. Assuming undiagnosed Alzheimer disease. In all, I believe in a spare double handful of things for which I have only my own testimony to offer as evidence. In light of this lack of evidence I realize that it would be presumptuous and foolish to expect anyone to believe (and accept as a fundamental fact of import) that my mother loves me and that my father considered my education to be more than the three Rs. It is not difficult to imagine arguments and challenges against my assertions.
This cherished paucity of belief is dwarfed by the things that I accept conditionally. Evolution is only one thing. I also accept that an airplane wing generates lift; that tires keep cars on course, that spring follows winter, that youngsters are driven by chemical forces, that stars are mortal, that spirited argument engenders understanding and occasionally kind regard. If I were to encounter evidence that any of the above (or a jillion other things) were not so I would be obliged to modify my assumptions and standards. But this is what I do every day.
Not an easy task but necessary. I do take some small pride in being able to accommodate change. I'm not as I used to be. This revelation does not prevent me from believing, with vigorous relief, in myself. And you.
Posted by: Sastra | August 8, 2008 11:16 PM
There is a very slight change of connotation between the phrases "believe that" and "believe in." To believe in something implies there's a positive personal element involved, a sort of commitment, desire, or relationship.
I believe in my wife.
I believe in the power of hope.
I believe in America.
As opposed to 'I believe that my wife is faithful or 'I believe that America is great.' You could also say 'I believe that my wife is a whore' or 'I believe that America sucks.' In which case, you would no longer believe in your wife, or in America.
I suppose you could believe that God exists, and not believe in God. You know -- if you think there is a God, but He's a major disappointment.
Perhaps we could say that New Age-ish fans of Teillhard de Chardin or process theologians "believe in" evolution, as the universe evolves to higher planes of spiritual perfection. Or whatever.
Posted by: Jams | August 8, 2008 11:19 PM
Ditto Steve LaBonne's point.
I don't remember my answers exactly (you should have warned me to remember!). I gave a variation on the "change over time" thing in one sentence. Something like: Evolution is a theory that describes complexity as a result determined by simple incremental changes.
Posted by: BriansAWildDowner | August 8, 2008 11:26 PM
I gave it a shot, but i think mine was pretty bad.
I said something like "Evolution means that something reproduces itself perhaps with a slight variation. If the variation is beneficial then the offspring will thrive and spread that same variation to their own offspring."
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 8, 2008 11:29 PM
Well, Sastra, that's just it. I tried twice to believe in God and was disappointed twice.
So, after much second thinking and the attendant confusion, I decided, at some random moment, to judge an idea by its merit, not its intent.
Philosophy is fine until science tunes the chimes.
That is that belief embodies the desire to show the best of humanity. And so does science. The difference is in the approach. Religion says "you will be told." Science says, "You will discover." On the one hand is magic; on the other, hard work. Work works for me. That way I know.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | August 8, 2008 11:32 PM
In a discussion with a colleague in Amsterdam, I started a sentence, "I believe. . ." He cut me off, "I don't want to know what you believe. I want to know what you think!"
No, I do not believe in evolution. I have considered the matter and I am convinced of evolution.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | August 8, 2008 11:33 PM
Hi Sastra!
Aren't any of you minions going to post about Ray Comfort accusing PZ of being a "no-show" on the debate? and commenting "I smell chicken"?
Posted by: mims h. carter | August 8, 2008 11:34 PM
My answer to what is evolution: The change in allele frequency in a population over time.
I have degrees in biology, comparative religion with minors in math, linguistics AND english literature, some of them from a similar westerly directed mid-western university. I may be prejudiced, but these directional mid-western schools are really, really good, better than many flagship universities in other areas of the country, like the Deep South, where I now live. So I will not give you a OOooo. ALL of the lit classes I took at Western Michigan were outstanding.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | August 8, 2008 11:36 PM
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 8, 2008 11:40 PM
I'm not really comfortable with the word "believe" when it comes to facts. Evolution happens.
-jcr
Posted by: Ehwotay | August 8, 2008 11:45 PM
@ JM Inc. - I am intrigued, what is link between Malthus and Darwin?
Posted by: Aaron | August 8, 2008 11:46 PM
Sorry to be all nitpicky and pedantic, but the proper spelling is "Caltech", not "Cal Tech".
-- Aaron (formerly a Caltech student)
Posted by: Whateverman | August 8, 2008 11:48 PM
Deists get left out of the debate because we simply aren't that exciting. We disagree with institutionalized religion, and shy away from Strong Atheism - it's almost as if Christianity, in it's demonizing of atheism, has forced people to view the situation as binary...
But I digress...
The questions were interesting, and at least one made me unconfortably choose an option I didn't entirely agree with.
In short, the TOE is preferable as long as its formed and qualified by the results of the scientific method. As peer review has kept it honest, I find it much more plausible than people who say "Not only did God do it, but it was *my* God that was responsible".
Posted by: Paul Burnett | August 8, 2008 11:50 PM
By the time I was 12, I had been to zoos in Frankfurt, Germany, and in St. Louis, MO. I had seen kudu and okapi, who seemed to be way-stations to giraffes. Direct observations of animals, with help from encyclopedias and other books led me to easily understanding and accepting evolution. By the time I was 13 or 14, evolution seemed so intuitively obvious there was no turning back. I had also gotten interested in astronomy and easily accepted the concept of Deep Time - so descent with very gradual modification over millions of years was no problem. Evolution has always made sense to me.
Posted by: mims h. carter | August 8, 2008 11:51 PM
Steve - 'Justified belief = Knowledge', this is the essence of the Anglo/American analytical philosophy tradition. I only label it so because you may find argument, even among secularists, about the veracity of this statement by (labels again) followers of the so-called continental philosophy tradition, who usually put up a straw man argument about this saying that ANY belief = knowledge, ignoring the vibrant argument about what criteria a 'justified belief' has. This philosphical thread is not limited to post-modernists. Those are easily ignored, I think. Kant, Husserl, Heidegger, et. al., are more interesting.
Posted by: Who Cares | August 8, 2008 11:54 PM
How far off base am I when I answered: "
evolution is the adaptation of species to their environment"?
How much cringing would I get from your average person who actually has had more then a few years highschool/college level biology?
Posted by: Efogoto | August 8, 2008 11:55 PM
I'm with you Steve LaBonne on the use of the word "believe". I believe you when you say you're serious about this. I believe that the theory of evolution is a well-supported theory that has no equal in explaining the diversity of life on Earth. I believe I'll have a beer now.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 8, 2008 11:59 PM
Very, I'm afraid. The bulk of evolutionary change involves no such thing. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.htmlPosted by: negentropyeater | August 9, 2008 12:19 AM
1. Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth (and most certainly on other planets in the universe). It describes the natural processes which enabled a common ancestor more than 3.5 billion years ago to change over time in an unguided way into what we see today, with all the most important steps in between.
2. It works, it fits the evidence from the fossil record, from genetics, from what we can observe today. It's also logical that it works. Is there anything else to "accept" ?
Posted by: BobC | August 9, 2008 12:28 AM
This question I have seen on many polls:
On the question of the origin and development of life and humans, what do you believe?
1. People were magically created.
2. People developed from other animals but magic made it possible.
3. People developed from other animals and it was a completely natural process.
If I remember correctly about half of Americans believe in creation woo-woo. The other half are not much better. About 36% of Americans invoke magic to guide the development of people. Only 14% leave the magic man out of it.
This tells me that most of the Americans who accept evolution don't understand it. The combination of religious indoctrination and extremely poor science education has made America into a country of dopes.
This problem is not getting any better. The constant attempts by Christian scum to suppress the teaching of evolution is working. They are losing in court but they have been doing an excellent job of intimidating biology teachers. Who knows how many teachers just quietly skip evolution just to avoid harassment from Christian thugs.
Where I live in Florida the Christians are out of control. They never give up trying to suppress science education. Today's news: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 TALLAHASSEE -- Public school science teachers who want to include creationism or intelligent design in their lesson plan could not be punished by principals or school districts under a bill approved Tuesday by a Florida Senate committee.
Posted by: Luftritter | August 9, 2008 12:38 AM
I agree whith several opinions above. YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS A FACT PROBED BEYOND ANY DOUBT BY EVIDENCE!
In other words evolution by means of natural selection is a robust, consistent and elegant scientific Theory, the link and the fundament that gives unity to the biological sciences. Whitout evolution you cannot understand ANYTHING about living beings.
Posted by: Lee Picton | August 9, 2008 12:39 AM
Not being a biologist (Master's in English and a career in computers), I tended to give the shortest answers that would not make me look foolish, i.e. change in allele frequency over time, 150 years of peer-reviewed research, no evidence so far offered that would weaken it, dinosaurs are cool, and, um, a couple other things that would at least indicate that I understood it. Most of you guys gave much better answers.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | August 9, 2008 12:46 AM
So who misses PZ? This seems like a good opportunity to raise some hell and desecrate some religious paraphernalia.
Okay, on topic: Every time a description of evolution comes up I waffle up something new. So here's todays attempt:
1st question [explain]:
2nd question [accept]:
Posted by: cactusren | August 9, 2008 12:47 AM
Wow! Apparently I thought about this too much. I figured since they gave us 1000 characters that I should fill things out a bit. Basically, I said evolution is the change in genotype and phenotype of a population, which can occur through natural selection and/or genetic drift, and when populations become isolated from each other (geographically or behaviorally) they become genetically less similar over time, eventually becoming distinct species. I think I also explained natural selection in a bit more detail.
BMcP @10: Your story gives me hope. I'm glad you took the initiative to learn about evolution and geology on your own, so that you could see through the YEC bull. I hope there will be many more who follow in your footsteps.
In terms of using the word believe for evolution: I don't think it is technically wrong, but I think it is fodder for those religious types who assume we believe things as blindly as they do. I prefer to say that I accept evolution, or that I think the evidence supports evolution. It really seems to catch them off-guard, and bringing up the evidence can steer the conversation in that direction, and away from a who-believes-what conversation, which is generally a dead end.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | August 9, 2008 1:06 AM
Old coot in rocker; "Do you believe in infant baptism?"
Other old coot in other rocker: "Believe in it? Hell, I've seen it done!"
Pretty much that, yeah.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | August 9, 2008 1:14 AM
#23 ->"Evolution = slightly sloppy replication."
An even pithier way of expressing what I was going to offer. To expand a little though...
Given growth or reproduction by means of molecules splitting and/or combining (such as we can observe DNA doing);
and given that on occasion the splitting/combining will result in mistakes (as we can see with even fairly simple equipment);
and given that living organisms will compete for resources (as we can see in the world around us);
then it is obvious that the best able to compete and use those resources will tend to prosper and thus those mistakes will be passed on and become a new base upon which more 'mistakes' will build.
Thus we can expect evolution by natural selection to be a significant force in the history of living things.
You don't need any particularly sophisticated knowledge of biology, chemistry, maths or anything much to be able to understand the above. Just a willingness to think; which is of course where we hit problems.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 9, 2008 1:19 AM
Oh, I wouldn't say that. It's more because deism is silly in a peculiarly pointless way: you get few of the psychological goodies that theists get from their gods, but you run just as decisively afoul of science. (Unless you go all the way to the kind of Spinozism that's logically indistinguishable from atheism, in which case it's a purely a matter of word-juggling and thus even more pointless, but harmless.)Posted by: Orson Zedd | August 9, 2008 1:20 AM
Belief is one of those strange ideas that mean different things to different people. Believing evolution isn't the same as believing a prophet or in a god or something. Belief works with things like goodness and justice, and things that don't exist in nature. Goodness and Justice are a part of belief, because without them, the world can be either destructive, or simply less fun. We all have our irrational beliefs, but saying one believes evolution to be true, is somewhat different than saying one believes in the gods.
Posted by: Radwaste | August 9, 2008 1:24 AM
Want some irony?
The next time you get in a discussion about "belief", point out that faith cannot exist in the absence of doubt. If you are certain of something, faith is banished. Yet the faithful claim to be certain of things in their religion, about which they have simply granted status as fact.
The irony of faith is the biggest stumbling block, the core of problems the faithful have with understanding the real world.
Posted by: Dagger | August 9, 2008 1:55 AM
Good set of questions. It'll be interesting to see the results. Like many on here, I am not a scientist, but then again I don't have to be. All I have to understand is one thing. Scientific Method. If an idea/theory/statement stands up to the kind of scrutiny imposed by scientific method then by definition it is the most currently plausible answer to that idea/theory/statement (while still being subject to change as more details are revealed). If the idea/theory/statement cannot stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny, then it is false. Simple.
Posted by: JM Inc. | August 9, 2008 1:59 AM
OK, I'm a pretty verbose guy, but this is just absurd. I just finished my answer to the first essay question and, by assiduously selective wording, I have managed to come up with an answer which I am both substantially satisfied with and which contains precisely the maximum number of characters.
"'Evolution' is an English-language word ("here I was uncertain about whether 'evolution' is a word used in any other languages in this precise form"-P.S.) which is descended from the Latin word "evolvtio", which means 'unfold' in the sense of a scroll or a piece of parchment.
Biological evolution may be described as the modification ("here I felt the word 'modification' implied time lapse, thus not necessitating specification"-P.S.) of heritable features (the phenotype) within organismal families by stochastic selectivity within genomic and epigenomic (the genotype) variation ("here I was uncertain whether epigenetics by definition constitutes part of the 'genotype', I also felt that 'genomic and epigenomic variation' implied population distribution, thus not necessitating the duplication of 'organismal families'"-P.S.). Genomic variation originates through mutation, which is copy-error in heritable genes, which are function-regions within organismal genomes. Some examples of heritable (germinal) copy-error types are multiplications, deletions, modifications, and transpositions. Epigenomics consist in a variety of non-genomic or partially genomic chemical factors which modify the expressivity of genomic regions.
In practical terms, the fact of evolution refers to the modification over time of the genotype and phenotype in organismal families by all likely means. The Theory of Evolution is an examination and explanation of all such means."
Anybody have an opinion? I left a lot out for the character limit, especially on the side of the explanations of the cultural and historical context of the theory, as well as its subsequent development to Darwin. In case you're wondering, I had no intention of making the precise character limit, it just turned out that way when I had to choke it down to fit it all in. Now, on to essay question two!