Matzke Nails DI on Transitional Forms

Hi Ed,

I am aware of the "building the puzzle" argument you present. It doesn't surprise me that that argument is the basis for the transitional in nature interpretation of the intermediate in form Tiktaalik fossil. However, my comment had more to do with how the "common" man responds to intellectual arguments than with how creationists may ignore intellectual arguments due to supposedly biased religious beliefs.

IOW, I think that the person on the street, regardless of their education level, is less likely to be persuaded on this issue simply by the data. One of your co-horts expressed as much in a post she wrote a while back. Simply put, people aren't buying the evolutionary paradigm (or the creationist paradigm, for that matter) based on the science alone. Yet the impression I get from the pro-evolution lobby is that more funding is needed... more funding to provide better science education - and once that is accomplished, then the average Joe will understand the issue, not be swayed by the ignorant, and come on board.

But it doesn't seem to be happening that way, does it? Why is that? Some of the more radical in your camp seem to think that it's because of those religious wackos... but I think that such a notion attributes more power to the religious wackos than they deserve.

So, how do you sway the masses?

Rusty Lopez

Accountant: "Krusty, You bet all your money on the Washington Generals?"
Krusty: "I thought they were due! The game was fixed! The Globetrotters used a ladder for Pete's sake! C'mon! He's just holding out the ball, take it!!"

In turning your guns towards the DI (or AIG, et. al.), you ignore the common man (e.g., Doug TenNapel). Like it or not, the general population will probably listen to a common man before an intellectual.

Rusty Lopez

Rusty-

Let me rephrase your comment a bit: the general population will listen to someone completely ignorant on the subject before they listen to someone who understands it, as long as the ignorant person gives them some reason to think that their religious views are justified or that an idea they consider a threat to those religious views is not justified. But I would argue that the average person is more likely to get their nonsense from the DI or AIG or ICR than from a blogger few people have even heard of. Unfortunately, those who do listen to this guy you link to, just like those who listen to the DI, will get nothing but bad arguments and ignorance. The arguments he makes aren't just bad, they're just plain silly. He says:

..wait a minute, you're telling me that scientists have been preaching Godless evolution all this time without a legit fish-to-tetrapod missing link?! Well what were you using all this time on the fossil tree, science fiction?

This is utterly stupid, based upon the ignorant notion that between one major animal group and another there's going to be one single "missing link". That's absurd. A fish didn't hatch an amphibian done day. Between fish and amphibians, there are numerous intermediate forms, found in precisely the right temporal and anatomical sequence, to demonstrate how the transition took place. It's very much like building a puzzle, where you can tell what the picture is long before you find that last piece. The whole idea of a "missing link", so popular among creationists and ignorant media reporters, should just go away. Are there gaps in the fossil record? Of course there are, and there will always be, simply because of the nature of fossilization. But the patterns that we do see can only be explained by common descent.

We could easily infer that amphibians evolved from rhipidistian fish long before we had found some of the specific fossils that showed the transition for many reasons. First, because they are the only fish that had a bone structure in their fins that fit the pattern that tetrapods have in their limbs. We could further infer that they specifically evolved from osteolepiform, a particular type of rhipidistian fish, because only osteolepiform fish had a choana, a hole between the nasal passage and the mouth that allowed air to pass through. Second, the earliest tetrapods looked virtually identical to them, with just a few adaptations for land living, and over time as new tetrapods appear they appear less and less like fish and more like extant species (a pattern that is found in every major animal group, of course).

The fact is that we have had an excellent series of fossils supporting the fish to amphibian transition for a long time. Carl Zimmer documents those findings in extraordinary detail in his book At the Water's Edge. Tiktaalik fills in a single gap where we didn't have a specimen, but it joins a long list of fossils that demonstrate the transition - (in order) Panderichthys, Sauripterus, Elginerpeton, Hynerpeton, Ichthyostega, Acanthostega, Pederpes. So this whole "Oh my god, they just found the missing link, that means they've been teaching that it's true without any evidence up till now" notion is patently absurd and betrays a rank ignorance of the fossil evidence.

After reading Matzke's post something finally occurred to me: the reason evolution-deniers complain so much about biologists marching in lockstep is that they themselves can't get their story anywhere near straight, even on such seemingly important matters as common descent ... and they don't see that as a problem for them, but instead for biologists, who must therefore all be reading from the same demonic script.

steve s, I remember that one. Klassic Krusty.

Hi Ed,

I'm aware of the "building the puzzle" argument you posit. My concern is not to debate the differences between the concepts of transitional in nature and intermediate in form. I'm simply pointing out that the average Joe is not, imo, heavily swayed by intellectual arguments. This "response" seems to occur regardless of whether the person is ignorant or educated (as was discovered by a cohort of yours).

Why do you think it is that, despite having the upper hand in the science classroom (as well as the courts), the evolutionary paradigm is still not generally accepted (and understood)? Some of the more radical in your camp would, no doubt, blame the religious wackos. But I think that gives much more credit to the religious wackos than they deserve.

Hence my pointing out the Doug TenNapel site. Whether or not few people have heard of him is irrelevant - there are many, many others out there.

Other than using the courts to gain a monopoly in the classroom, and the potential of additional funding in educational resources, how does your side intend to address this issue?

Rusty Lopez

Rusty Lopez wrote:

I'm simply pointing out that the average Joe is not, imo, heavily swayed by intellectual arguments. This "response" seems to occur regardless of whether the person is ignorant or educated (as was discovered by a cohort of yours).

I agree with the first part, not necessarily the second part. It's certainly true the vast majority of people are not swayed by intellectual argument, or evidence for that matter, on this issue. I've said this for years, that the vast, vast majority of those who reject evolution do so not because they understand it and think it's a flawed theory, but solely because of their perception that evolution means their religious beliefs have to be thrown out.

Why do you think it is that, despite having the upper hand in the science classroom (as well as the courts), the evolutionary paradigm is still not generally accepted (and understood)? Some of the more radical in your camp would, no doubt, blame the religious wackos. But I think that gives much more credit to the religious wackos than they deserve.

Well, I would give partial credit (blame) to religious leaders who have worked very hard to reinforce that perception that evolution = atheism = no morality and no religious belief. I also give partial blame to the evangelical atheists on "my side" who work equally hard to do the same thing, and I've said that many times. And I would give partial blame to the fact that we just do such a lousy job of teaching evolution and, in particular, the scientific method in science classes. It's that ignorance that can be preyed upon. That's why, despite the fact that virtually everyone in the nation has to take two years of science in high school minimum, we still have the vast majority of people running around thinking that if you can't perform an experiment in a lab, you can't do science, or thinking that if you can't reproduce the event you're trying to explain, you can't know how it happened.

Other than using the courts to gain a monopoly in the classroom, and the potential of additional funding in educational resources, how does your side intend to address this issue?

That's a really good question, actually, and it's something I've been adamant about for years - our side has to stop just playing defense and take positive steps to improve science education in this country. I'll give you one example of how we're beginning to do that. My friend Greg Forbes, a fellow board member of Michigan Citizens for Science, has formed the Evolution Education Initiative, an organization that teaches teachers how to teach evolution more effectively. He puts on seminars to train teachers to teach other teachers, who then go out and teach other teachers, who then teach students. He's already done this in Ohio, where every single science teacher took the seminar, and he's working to replicate this nationwide. That's a great example of what we can do to at least counter the ignorance on this issue at a fairly young age.

The other thing we can do, and this again is something I've been saying for many years, is increase the visibility of people like Ken Miller, Howard Van Till, Keith Miller, Glenn Morton and many others, people who can speak to the faith community in their own language and counter the widespread perception that evolution = atheism and that one has to give up their religious beliefs in order to accept evolution as true. Most people aren't even aware that their own denominations probably have explicitly said that evolution is consistent with their faith.

And along those same lines, we need to get people on our side to stop making such grandiose claims about evolution. Like all scientific theories, evolution is discrete, that is, it explains a particular set of data and that's all it explains. Evolutionary theory doesn't end with "...and therefore, there is no God". Evolution is naturalistic in the exact same manner that the germ theory of disease is naturalistic, meaning it doesn't necessarily entail metaphysical naturalism any more than medicine does, or plumbing for that matter. Evolution merely posits that all life on earth shares one or a few common ancestors. Period.