Is Evolution Untouchable?
I’ve noticed the complaint from a few different sources lately that evolution is simply ‘untouchable’. It usually is attacking atheists for clinging to evolution so devoutly, claiming that anyone with a religious background is simply unable to even question the theory. Is there some truth to that claim? Trying to think about it objectively… well, maybe so. But it’s not what they would have you believe.
Let’s examine the situation a little more deeply. Question: What is the real connection with evolution to any kind of disagreement on theology? Answer: Absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, evolution has been dragged into this fight presumably without first consulting it. There is nothing about atheism that connects with evolution any more than atheism connects with gravity or knot theory. But evolution had the misfortune to have some implications that certain religious groups couldn’t reconcile with their long held myths, so it has been branded a religious debate. Let’s not pretend that this is a completely one-sided fault either. While there may have been some Christian science watchdogs analyzing the theory of evolution and its implications from the start, there probably was an equivalent force on the other side, waiting for the opportunity to say “Hey! Look, you guys are wrong, and we have proof!” The debate is what it is today, and it’s short-sighted to claim that it was one side’s fault over the others.
But is it really untouchable? I don’t think that it’s completely out of line to say that this debate has become so polarized, that some people are so incredibly invested in one side or the other, that they may ignore any criticism from the outset. Honestly, I’ve spent enough time on the internet to know that these people are around for just about every debate you might have. It’s only because of the enormous fame of this one that these people have actually gotten real publicity. But I think that the real problem comes from a confusion of terminology that plagues evolution already. People who don’t understand the terms that scientists use will snicker at the “theory of evolution”, when it’s actually quite a solid idea. The terminology that gets lost here, though, is what people mean when they say “Evolution”. Richard Dawkins is often misinterpreted when he says that there is no doubt in his mind about evolution. “Oh REALLY?” his opponents say. “You must have some strong FAITH in that THEORY!” Or something like that. But it’s all rubbish. There is evolution the theory and evolution the fact, and it’s important to understand the distinction.
When Dawkins says that evolution is a fact, he’s stating something that we can be almost 100% certain of – creatures evolve. It has been seen; it’s a known effect. The overarching principles, the explanation of the effect, the reasons, that’s the theory. Suppose that someone said that gravity was a fact, and he was dead certain about that. Any qualms with that? Nope, he’s perfectly justified in saying that because we see the effect. Things fall down; masses are pulled together. We see it. It happens. Fact. Why does it happen? How does it happen? Can we quantify it? Those are questions for the theory. The Law of gravity is, essentially, wrong. Newton described things quite well, but he was ultimately wrong. So our theory changed, but the fact is still true. The one we have now seems pretty good, but who knows? It could change again, but I still will see things falling no matter what our best understanding is of the reasons.
I think that very few real thinkers would actually claim that we have an exact scientific theory with no holes or open questions, which will be solid forever, about evolution. What they get defensive about is that people are trying to force the idea out of consideration all together. “Look at this problem with evolution…” is ultimately followed by “Life doesn’t evolve”, which is the mistake. It would have seemed incredibly silly for Einstein to say “I see problems with the Law of Gravity… Gravity must not exist!” But it happens every day for evolution. Science progresses by observing and theorizing, then repeating, over and over and over. Claiming that problems with our theory discount the observation is backwards – so don’t do it.
Yes, evolution is somewhat untouchable – evolution the fact. We’ll be refining evolution the theory for a long time to come.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
The Earth is Flat! This is a certain Fact, as I can verify it by a Dream I had, and everbody knows that Dreams have meaning, purpose, and concrete relevance.
OK, OK, so I’m a nutcase. But, that the Earth is Flat is undeniable – uhm, to reasonable nutcases, like me – so what’s the big deal with “round-earthers”? They claim that they can perform concrete measurement of Earth and thereby determine it is “round”! That’s just simply a lie! My Dream is what’s concrete ‘evidence,’ Not their so-called measurements!
But, let’s go one with this issue of “evolution.” It’s also an example of using human wisdom, Not Dreams, to devine Existence of Matter. I can defy every evolutionist’s theories about measured ‘proof’ of evolution by my much superior Dream about Existence, and the unknowable past that everything humans have ability to observe descends from.
Oh, the biggy, religion, or is it Religion?. Well, it too is defined by a Dream, not by any human measurement. We find that religion, or Religion, is a prevalent trait in every human being, and that in the absence of every known formal, collective, organizsed religion and Religion, that every known discovery of a group of organized Human Beings include one or more forms of either, or both religion and Religion. [Some like it capitalized, some don't!:-))]
So, now we’ve arrived at a-theisitic aspects of Human Being existence. Ah yes, here. No deity? How ironic that such silly observance Only exists where eiither or both religion and Religion are strongest in their influence and control of organized social structures! Indeed, even without a Dream to reveal this fact, we discover that where a smallish enclave of humans live together in some form of order, but without tolerance for dissention, religion, or Religion, rules supreme. NOBODY can express a-theistic thought.
Therefore, those from larger orders of organized groups who claim to apply a-theist values to their studies of “primative peaoples,” cannot objectively claim to do so in reality, as those they are studying are engaged in, and deeply infected with either or both religion and Religion, as it defines every aspect of tgheir daily existence.
So, Dreams definitely define Human Being Knowledge, and not the other way around, Human Beings define dreams, as many a-theorists would claim, and also their equally dogmatized bretheren, the religion-ists, and Religion-ists.
Yes, I understand that this rant does not appear to be from a sane mental composure, but, so what? Is yours any more sane in its composure?
Thank Creator, He Knows the difference! Oops! Did I just say “Creator”!? I could get into deep do do over that with certain religious and Religious circles! Not to mention, a-theists!
Smile
Christians see belief in evolution as a threat to their own agenda. As a reswult, they make no attempt to look at it objectively.
Please keep posting
People in the world get the credit loans in various banks, because that is fast and easy.