Both James and Drew have taken me to task for uttering the secret words… evolution is a doctrine. Apparently you’re not supposed to say that out loud. I won’t repeat my earlier post on the subject since that’s not necessary. I will simply ask one final question and then I’ll leave this dead horse to its happy decomposition. If the theory of evolution isn’t a doctrine, why do its defenders expend such religious zeal to defend it? Frankly I couldn’t care less if its true or false. I am just amazed at the almost fundamentalistic zeal expressed by its caretakers. It’s a religion. And hence, it’s a doctrine.
[n.b.- I like both James and Drew- and don't want to annoy them- but the question posed in the post title is a legitimate one].
While I can’t speak for others, as an educator who works in higher education, get very annoyed when specific agendas that are clearly and unquestionably unscientific find their wherewithal into curricula that does not and should not entertain the idea. I think our kids are very confused about what science is and this something I have heard from scientists at primarily Catholic universities and colleges at which I have worked. I have heard it in Metanexus meetings, and other venues where both theologians and scientists get together.
Some people are quite religious in the matter (PZ Myers for one, Dawkins for another) but not all who defend the veracity of evolution approach it with the same reverence as an object of religion. I certainly do not. I just do not like confusion and lack of clarity – especially in educational endeavors and I think this makes science more confusing than it needs to be. Scientists will say that creationism and ID are not science not because of religious zeal, but because the alternatives presented are unscientific and belong in another place than the lab. This is why we have a liberal arts core in so many colleges and universities and why we have disciplines in the first place.
By: Drew on August 26, 2008
at 2:02 pm
Jim, let me respond with a question. Why do you get up in arms when people treat allegedly historical or Biblical nonsense as though it were scholarship?
I suspect it isn’t because good scholarship is “doctrine”, but because the nonsense is so bad, it is offensive to anyone with expertise in the field.
Young earth creationism and intelligent design are those sorts of ideas, as far as experts in biology are concerned. If you want to disagree, I think it would at least be appropriate to better inform yourself about the state of biology, paleontology and genetics. I’m not opposed to non-experts joining in discussions of the Bible, but if they proudly claim they know when in fact they haven’t taken the time to even carefully read what the Bible says, then it is offensive. And it gets me (and you) annoyed – just like pseudoscience annoys those who are devoting their lives to improving our understanding of our place in biological history.
By: James McGrath on August 26, 2008
at 10:19 pm
nope- unless you’re socrates or jesus you dont get to answer a question with a question. so, when you answer mine, i’ll answer yours.
By: Jim on August 27, 2008
at 7:03 am
BTW – I like you too Jim
By: Drew on August 27, 2008
at 11:58 am
If people accused you of being a child molester, I’m guessing you’d get angry and defensive. Those people can’t then say something like, “If you’re not a child molester, why are you so angry and defensive?” Your reaction to the accusation has no bearing on the truth of the matter.
By: Jose on September 11, 2008
at 1:44 pm
so you delete comments that make good points?
By: Irradiatus on September 12, 2008
at 9:49 am
nope- i reject anonymous comments. if i don’t know ya, and you hide behind anonymity or some goofy internet name, and aren’t willing to own up to what you say, i think you’re not worthy of any bandwidth.
By: Jim on September 12, 2008
at 9:56 am
1) Just because someone is vociferous and passionate with any sort of claim, defense, proclamation, or simple statement, that does not have any bearing on its “religiosity”. Calling a passionate response “religious zeal” is simply an attempt to obfuscate the language and warp the debate.
2) Equating the passionate nature of a subject’s defense with anything concerning the nature of that subject is simple fallacious logic (i.e. what does passion of a response have to do with whether or not it is doctrine?)
I will agree with the philosophical premise that ALL scientific knowledge is predicated on the prime assumption that sense relates to reality. Thankfully, simple pragmatism allows us to build science from the fact that it seems to work.
However, neither science nor evolution can be considered “doctrine” for the simple inherent acknowedgement within the scientific epistomology that it will always be possible that the prime assumption might be false. This is why science “fact” isn’t based on provability, but by falsifiability. Even the falsification of any scientific hypothesis is always considered inherently tentative. You cannot call something doctrine if that doctrine implicitly acknowledges its own fallibility.
(note: obviously in this argument, I am only referring to the common usage of doctrine meaning “dogmatic system of beliefs” as opposed to the more innocuous “codified system of teachings”. Of course evolution is a codified system of teachings. But it is a system that inherently acknowledges its own fallibility and tenuous nature.)
By: Daniel Brown on September 14, 2008
at 1:41 pm