Science Questions

So on Tuesday I was at a science conference at NDSU, featuring a biologist describing why creationist claims are not valid. I had great discussions before and after the meet, and met more of the creationist folk in the area. After the conference, a bible teacher, and who I presume was his student came up to me asking some questions about evolution.

I was happy to field such questions, but the very first thing I mentioned was that I am NOT a scientist. I am not a biologist, I am just interested in discussion science, nature, and religion. Sure, I have read extensively about biology and evolution, and a beautiful thing it is, but when people think it is an Atheists job to defend science, and if they cannot, then science fails, are simply looking for a straw-man.

This case, however, the younger guy asked me some pretty easy questions, so I felt comfortable to answer. The first question was: "How do we evolve if humans get old and die?"

So clearly his idea of evolution is WAYYY off, but if I am permitted to speculate, I would guess he thinks evolution is like Ray Comfort believes, transition from one life form to another, like a half duck, half crocodile. See Crocoduck!

No no, evolution occurs in gene pools, a competition between the genes in a population rather than individually. If North Koreans, isolated as they are, started artificially selecting only the tallest members of their society to breed, then the North Koreans of the future would be generally taller because some genes allowed some to breed, and others not to. Nature does this through selection pressures of survival.

Changes are extremely slow and occur over vast stretches of time. We are able to view this process in nature though, as environment changes, the species in them must change accordingly.

The second and last question was 'why humans evolved higher than others'. Again, a common misunderstanding among creationists, who tend to disseminate false information about evolution to confuse people. Evolution is not a ladder, nature is blind and has no direction. We are able to contemplate these issues because we evolved 'higher brain function', which just happened to work out for us quite well, but if put in a running match with a cheetah, a wrestling contest with a bear, or a swimming contest with a whale, we would not fare well. Humans have evolved the ability to communicate more efficiently than others, use tools, and shave off undesirable body hair. This, however, does not make us higher, or better than other animals, just better at those specific things.

This is a classic anthropocentric fallacy. If we see something from our point of view, it seems significant, of course. I will use the puddle analogy once again. If a puddle is amazed because the roads, the pothole, and the world around it have been designed for it, before it asks if it is possible for the shape of the puddle to have formed in the available environment, then it is being puddle-centric. Imagine if the puddle remarks about how inferior the human is for not being able to change shape. Imagine the giraffe making fun of the human who has to CLIMB trees. No, we are pretty good at doing what we need to do to survive and continue spreading our genes.

Here is my question though. WHY are so many people simply unable to read about evolution? In my previous post, I offered some suggestions of which books to start with about evolution. Why does it seem that people are so religious only when they refuse to read opinions outside their own beliefs?

Read a f*#$!ing book!