The latest Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal by Zach Weiner purports to show a deep flaw in creationism. But creationists already have an answer to this; I’ll leave it to you to give it in the comments (there’s also a wording problem in the first panel):
h/t: jsp
We don’t “believe” in evolution… we accept the evidence for evolution.
That doesn’t mean that gawd buried the fossils.
In addition to the “belief” issue, science relies on evidence, not “proof”.
Yeah, you can “believe” something but it doesn’t affect whether or not it is true i.e evolution would still be true whether or not you believed in it. Proof is more of a mathematical concept of deriving mathematical truths from a set of axioms. So, yes they are right that you cannot “prove” evolution is true so scientists have to demonstrate that the available evidence shows that the theory is the best approximation to real life.
But it’s a Creationist speaking, and they demand “proof” far beyond the ability of any science to deliver.
There’s also a spelling problem: It’s Zach Weiner, not “Weinger”.
LOL E.A Blair said “weiner”
That was a typo,but I’ve fixed it. Thanks!
I don’t see anything wrong with speaking of “belief” in evolution.
I forget who said it, but: “Many people believe in God, and many people believe in Australia. But not many people believe in God in quite the same way they believe in Australis.”
I believe in evolution in very much the same way I believe in Australia. I also believe in gravity, atoms (and even electrons!), that the Earth goes ’round the Sun (technically the solar system’s barycenter, which goes around the milky way’s barycenter, which…), the Pauli exclusion principle, etc.
“Belief” does not imply faith, it simply refers to something that is thought to be true — whether it’s believed due to faith, evidence, abstract reasoning (e.g. I believe there are infinitely many prime numbers), delusion, whatever.
More precisely I think people agree on the description of religion as unwarranted belief.
Though there is a qualitative and important difference between science and warranted belief, which is why people (or at least me) hesitate to claim it “belief”.
Facts are true independent of any philosophic solipsistic ideas. So they are more than just anecdotal/political/jurisdictional warranted. They are independent of our warrant.
Conversely, what we do is not that we just warrant them in some possibly false sense (such as pattern search), we strive for independent (objective) fact and consensus – we accept them.
I don’t think “belief” as such is the issue, but “belief in”. For example, to believe in a thing called love is different from believing that love exists. No?
/@
• Gah. Italics fail.
I agree with Gordon that there is nothing wrong with the words “belief,” “believe,” etc. I understand and agree with the desire to differentiate ourselves from those indulging in blind faith, but this is not necessarily what believe means.
Please understand, Jerry. I am not trying to tell you or anybody else what to do. I understand this is your blog and you are in no way obligated to pay any attention to my thoughts or desires. However, I personally think arguing about semantics this way is detrimental to our cause. It diverts attention from the real issues and makes us look like we have nothing more substantial to say.
In short, I BELIEVE Gordon is right.
But do you believe *in* Gordon?
/@
I can’t believe you called this a blog.
Assuming the word “belief” is the wording problem Jerry means, you are right that the word does not necessarily imply lack of evidence – we often say we won’t believe something until we have proof. In this cartoon, it makes sense because it’s the creationist character who is believing or not, from his perspective.
If I understand you are saying that arguing over semantics is detrimental to the atheist cause, you might be right if there’s a perception of some kind of PC ideological purity censorship thing. However, the distinction between believing on evidence versus believing on faith is important; the conflation of the two meanings is used to muddy the waters and create a false equivalence between science and faith. So there’s nothing wrong with using the word “belief”, but there’s also nothing wrong with preferring a stricter, more accurate word as a rhetorical and teaching device.
Since I joined Twi**er, and on my own website, I’ve been very careful not to use the words ‘believe’ and ‘evolution’ in the same sentence as it encourages the religious trolls. In the environment of the commenters on this website it’s not a big deal, but when your audience could include IDers and Creationists, the semantics become vital. So I’m with Jerry on this one.
It’s a shame the discourse has to be defined by the people who would abuse it, but it is what it is.
I think that’s what really rankles me — I don’t like being pushed around by trolls. I also think it’s somewhat destructive in the long term. The more we avoid using “believe” to describe evidence-based belief, the stronger the connotation that “believe” implies faith gets…
Ultimately, I think it’s a lot like the “evolution is just a theory” meme; the answer isn’t to claim that it’s not a theory (because it is), but to point out that “theory” doesn’t mean it isn’t backed by solid evidence.
Thus: I believe in the theory of evolution.
I believe in the theory of gravity.
I believe in the atomic theory.
And if some troll has a problem with any of those, that’s their problem, not mine.
The problem is not necessarily what we believe is or is not true, and on what levels of evidence we accept in support of those beliefs.
The problem, as I see it, Gordon and “dearmore”, is that of avoiding leaving injudicious phrases laying around to be picked up by industrious quote-miners from the “inspired” population (Ceiling Cat have mercy upon their minds!)999999999999999999.
Yes, that essentially means that it’s an exercise in PR spin-doctoring and political correctness – or even scientific and technical correctness. Looked at in the last sense, it’s not an issue, just a question of meaning what you say and saying what you mean. But the other aspects of the verdammit quote miners are a real issue.
It is a sad feeling to realise that your mouth (keyboard) really did say that, and that for years to come your one slip of the technical tongue is going to be thrown back in your face ad nauseam.
Someone has been leaving the keyboard too close to the cooling outlet, and things are not the right shape any more.
Whoops! Should have read this before I chimed in above. Sorry.
The creationist magic of a process mysteriously stopping, and at certain distances along some measure.
Also mysteriously, they don’t think it happens elsewhere. It would be like having falling objects hit a magic barrier every other meter, currents vanishing every other meter, or light absorbing every other meter.
Else I think it is enough to observe, contra Darwin’s times, that there are hereditary differences between people. Biology class mates can be reminded of their similarity with their parents and not other kids’ parents. (One may hope.)
Creationism is so stupid that if it hadn’t been invented it would take humanity at least until the weekend for someone to barf it up.
That of course being the basis of at least some creation myths. And other creation myths are based on effluvia from the other end.
sub
Creationist solution to the new strain of hepatitis = microevolution isn’t really evolution – it’s macroevolution [new kinds] that doesn’t happen
i.e. The Hovind’s & Ham’s will say “it’s still the same ‘kind’ of virus – you’ll never see it become a monkey!”
Is that really the argument? What frauds. Pope Francis could express a more plausible theory than that – actually, I think he did.
Aren’t we up to about Hepatitis ‘G’ already?
Now that’s a macro-evolutionary saltation!
Agree. I had an email exchange with a creationist once (why do I do that?) and he stated he has no problem with microevolution whatsoever. Same “kind”.
Yes, once they were forced to admit some evolution actually occurred, they termed that microevolution, and continued to deny evolution, which they call macroevolution. Cognitive dissonance. Again.
I don’t really get the cartoon. The image of Noah looks really unhealthy, so is he portrayed to have all these diseases?
Everyone else is assuming that mutation of bacteria is what’s being referred to, but wouldn’t that change people’s opinion of evolution, rather than Noah?
The answer to your second question lies in your first. Yes, Noah is portrayed as having all these diseases, so if a new strain is discovered, your vision of Noah (how he’s depicted) should show him having that disease on top of everything else. (Enough to confound even House MD; all his
guessesdiagnoses would be right.)/@
Just to spell it out explicitly – if there is no evolution and all organisms had to survive the flood, that includes all diseases and parasites, many of which are host specific. Since there were only eight people on the ark, they each must have been infected with quite a few pathogens, or else all the tapeworms, lice, and cholera would have gone extinct. And that goes for all the other species for their host specific parasites. The unclean animals must have been especially burdened, since there was only one pair of each of them, unlike the clean animals that got to split up the diseases among seven pairs.
I think the wording problem may be using ‘proof’ in place of ‘evidence in that first panel.
also, proof is simply proof, how much do you need?
96.
Which is 48% ABV; e.g., Laphroaig Quarter Cask.
/@
I don’t mind if I do Ant Allan! 🙂
Slàinte mhath!
mmmmm, Laphroaig
Barbarian.
Talisker. 100.
😜
Ah, my favorite libation. I believe I’ll have another wee dram…
Evidence… & there is plenty.
Yes, I am happy with the word “believe” – you can believe based on evidence (first panel) or you can believe based on scripture (second panel).
So, I agree that the problem word is “proof”. It should be “evidence”.
Ah, but you see, God created hepatitis E*. It has only recently been discovered by man. It is one of an almost infinite number of disease strains that God created at the Fall. But, above all, hepatitis E is not a new SPECIES.
*Forget, for the moment, the ‘all-loving’ implications.
Is the premise of the last panel in the cartoon that Noah must have been carrying all the infectious diseases on the ark and that’s how they survived? That would fit with the recent discoveries idea. Gosh they make a lot of work for themselves with these piecemeal, just-so stories.
In my experience, creationists reject “species” as a meaningful term, claiming it’s “not defined” and ignoring you if you provide a workable definition.
So they use “kinds” instead, claiming the definition is “self-evident” and relying on obvious “common sense” examples like dog breeds (for like “kinds”) and ducks and crocodiles (for unlike “kinds”)… and, again, simply refusing to engage you if you ask about less clear examples.
They trot out the bogus “microevolution” vs. “macroevolution” distinction, and some even go so far as to claim that new diseases are appearing as a direct result of the Fall, because the Curse of Adam is constantly making everything worse and worse. (They love this narrative path, because it lets them trot out the “evolution is disproved by entropy” canard, and also, in the same breath, lets them wax nostalgic for the glory days of the 1950s and McCarthyism.)
I wish I were creative enough to make this stuff up.
Sub
Speaking of badly-written signs…
At the cheap motel we stayed in last night, over the “continental breakfast” selection, it says:
No taking food outside
by Management
I think these badly-made notices are fun. My family joined a club over the summer and the glass doors between the bar and the pool look like a crazy bulletin board with all the ad-hoc rules and notices taped to them. The “no wet bathing suits in bar,” “shirt and shoes required,” and “no bare feet in bar” (the last one being redundant, and also inept because it has the cutesie bare footprint icons but no red circle-slash through them) are three separate notices and are not even next to each other. I don’t remember the exact wording, but I could not tell from the wording if we were allowed to bring drinks to poolside (I finally figured out they were trying to say not to bring glasses outside) or whether smoking was permitted, although in the last case the “no smoking” sign was right above a cordoned-off area with ashtrays on the tables. I could say something, but the collection makes such an entertaining grotesquerie I would miss it.
I get a kick out of them, too:-)
I think that the number one reason that I found it so easy to reject creationism in all it’s permutations is that fact that they denied the evidence for evolution and replaced it with the bible accounts and the infinite mystery of god. What would they say if evolutionist quoted the Origin of the Species as gospel and argued that we can not understand what are the infinite mysteries of Darwin. We would be laughed out of the house. This is just the treatment creationism should receive.
That’s what many of them say we do. I’ve had ‘insults’ like “Darwin worshipper” thrown at me, meaning I have to go through the palaver of explaining atheists don’t worship Darwin, we admire and respect his work.
I assume the usual creationist response to stuff like this is to wheel out the supposed distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. As the evidence for evolutionary change on human timescales has accumulated even creationists have been forced to concede that ‘micro-evolution’ occurs, ie. that small changes do happen. Having made this concession they then switched to denying that ‘macro-evolution’ occurs, ie. speciation, large-scale adaptations, etc…
This amounts to saying ‘we concede that evolutionary changes have been shown to occur experimentally in certain species with short generation turnovers. However, any changes that haven’t been demonstrated in experimental situations, before our very eyes…well we arbitrarily deny that they are possible.’
So they tend to say that creationism accepts the evolution of viruses, however this is all just piffling micro-evolution so it doesn’t really count. All meaningful change and complex adaptation is defined by them as macro-evolution so they get to create their cake and evolve it too. Is this what Jerry was talking about?
As far as I can see, the only thing that distinguishes micro- from macro-evolution is the amount of time involved. This creationist distinction between the two is just a vaguely technical-sounding way to discredit or define as irrelevant any evidence for evolution that doesn’t involve direct, ‘laboratory-based’ trials that take place over short, human time-scales.
The best argument for evolution as far as I’m concerned is almost entirely logical – that if we concede that organisms inherit traits, and given that there are occasional random imperfections in the copying mechanisms that undergird that heritability, and given that the natural world is dangerous and has finite resources, natural selection is an(almost) inevitable consequence. What could possibly stop it from taking place if the aforementioned criteria are met?
I think I’ve asked this of a creationist before. I can’t remember if I got a reply. You do occasionally find some relatively knowledgeable creationists but they’re just as unlikely to really engage honestly as other creationists.
Obviously the sticking point for creationists is human evolution: my understanding is that “baraminology” does do genetic and blood type analysis to a point, but if a method contradicts the assumption – that is, if the science would indicate humans are related to primates – the science is rejected as “inconclusive.” I sometimes feel bad for real scientists who put career-long effort into testing a hypothesis just to find their expectations don’t hold up, but there is always value to the rest of us in falsifying assumptions. It must be nice for creationists that they can just discard disconfirming evidence and get a gold star for it. I don’t know why anyone with half a brain is dissatisfied with “evolution is true and God makes it happen,” and lots of people with half a brain (give or take) think just that. I get that there is some kind of appeal in having an alternative “science” that makes it seem like real science is some kind of close-minded conspiracy, but, really, dismissing macroevo shrinks their all-powerful creator down to a sort of amateur tinkerer. If I had a god, I’d rather have one with the awesomest possible molecular toolkit, not a hobbyist with a dozen kinds of clay.
The answer is “kinds”. Creationists would say that Noah carried a “kind” of disease which could later, through “microevolution”, evolve into other diseases. Thus, Noah wouldn’t need to have every type of Hepatitis.
I don’t think that creationists would think that Noah’s Ark is “self-evident” (i.e everyone would reach a similar conclusion based on the same observations) as they have been indoctrinated to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and since God is infallible it follows that everything in the Bible is true which means that Noah’s Ark must really have happened. It’s not self-evident in the sense that it “makes sense” for a man to have been ordered by God to fit all of the world’s organisms of one boat. Also, surely they could avoid the hepatitis problem by claiming that God recently created it due to evil of man, etc?
I have been demanding of Creationists as of late, to just show us the Creation point of science to explain things with out once stomping on Evolution. So far no takers.
I’d like for them to explain why if all the layers in the rocks are not different epochs how could all such divergent species and habitats existed at once? Why are they so nicely and consistently layered and separate?
How come that the biology shows that all living things are not special creations but are in fact interrelated as one would find in Evolution?