Sigh. I don’t. How do you know that we’re not powered by microscopic gnomes turning little cranks rather than cellular respiration? How do you know the sun will rise tomorrow? This quickly becomes an ontological exercise.
Prior events tend to be good predictors of future events. Natural selection, mutation, and speciation have all been observed. The age of the earth can be ascertained by uranium-lead dating of meteorites or of galena deposits. Is it possible that God places his invisible hand somewhere in the system making it appear that the earth is older than it is? Yes. Is it possible that we’re all in the Matrix, and that the earth is really even older, but the machines make us think it’s 2006? Yeah, sure. But there’s little to no unique evidence in favor of either of those hypotheses, and a more parsimonious explanation is that things really are the way they seem.
Should we start teaching the Matrix Theory? It is, after all, a possibility. But it should become instantly obvious why we don’t teach all possible hypotheses. Why can’t we be content to teach the hypotheses that the data support?
Thinking more about it, evolution can work both ways. It might tell you that a species reduced to a tiny niche might be going extinct without our help, and that massive efforts to save it might be pointless. On the other hand, it can help determine where we are directly causing a species to go extinct that might be well adapted except for us, we should maybe think twice.
True, we’re part of the environment - but just as the argument for not letting babies die who might have dies 20,000 years ago, we can make a conscious decision to change selection to our liking.
The point really is, if lots of people don’t understand how evolution works, (in the broad sense) they are not going to be able to make informed political decisions about the environment.
First of all, thanks Musicat. This came up all the time when I was lurking in talk.origins. I brought it up to show that some creationists do have a problem with microevolution.
Perhaps if you gave people a quiz about bacterial resistance, they’d get it right. The success of anti-bacterial products, and all the scare tactics, shows that a very large chunk of the population does not understand this as it relates to their everyday life and purchasing decisions. Would this be better if there were no creationist pressure? I don’t know, maybe it is too hard for Joe Public, maybe it is just poor science education. But it is at least plausible that the lack of good evolution education has something to do with it.
:dubious:
And I find it interesting that my OP-purposefully-did not mention teaching ID in schools at all, yet more than half the responses here address that issue. I’m basically just concerned with a belief in ID, not attempting to teach it in public schools-although I have seen posters holding forth on the idea that private schools shouldn’t be allowed to teach creationism either, which is, I think, crazy.
I don’t recall many people saying they have a per se problem with other people holding ID beliefs (ridiculing them, maybe, but not a serious issue with it), and I don’t remember anyone saying that private schools should not be allowed to teach it. Do you have any links for the latter?
The “someone wants to teach intelligent design in public schools” scenario is the only situation in which I’m likely to find out about someone’s belief in intelligent design. I don’t spend much time hanging around with the type of religious conservatives who believe in intelligent design. If I did, I wouldn’t discuss the creation vs evolution debate with them- it’s not something I’m very interested in debating. I’d be very unlikely to hang around with someone who tried to push their religious beliefs on me after I tried to change the subject, because I find such behavior obnoxious.
I have the exact same problem with Scientologists wanting to teach their beliefs on drugs in public schools as I do with people wanting to teach intelligent design in public schools. I don’t hang out with any Scientologists that I know of, and, if I did, I would discuss things other than Scientology with them.
I don’t have a problem with anyone having a religious belief, no matter how ridiculous I think it is, as long as they aren’t trying to push it on anyone in a setting where they’re not free to leave (such as public schools).
As Anne Neville pointed out, the only time that one generally encounters an ID adherent is in the context of education, so it is a pretty natural direction for the discussion to take since, while you did not include the education aspect, you also did nothing to rule it out.
(The fact that the OP shifts rather sloppily between a discvussion of Creationism and ID did not help to focus the discussion, either. People who believe in a 6,000 year old Earth are rarely ID proponents. ID people (such as Behe), actually require that Darwin’s theory handles the basic components of the development of life (and requires great age), but insist that they can discern a bit of hands on tweaking in the middle of the rest of evolution.)
People take antibiotics carelessly because they’re selfish, not because they believe in creationism. The thinking is simple: *well, it’s just me so one person doing this isn’t going to make any difference. I want my antibiotics!
*
I don’t want creationism taught in public schools, and I accept that doing so violates the US constitution. But if we need people to understand about proper use of antibiotics, or to understand ecosystems, you’ll need to teach those specific topics, not expect people to figure it out from the few weeks of evolutonary theory they get in HS. Using that as an argument for teaching evolution just weakens the argument because it sounds so much like an after-the-fact justification.
They actually cannot believe in “micro”-evolution if they are not going to believe in “macro”-evolution. They are the small thing. “Macro”-evolution just has more steps.
It is like saying, “sure I believe 1+1= 2, but I don’t believe 1+1+1=3”.
We’ve had that discussion around here many, many times and if you’re willing to believe in magic (which creationism is, essentially), you can wave away any objection.
AFAIK, we are the first species that has evolved in such a way that we may be able to plan ahead to prevent the death of our own species. That may involve preventing the extinction of other species also. Preserving these species would then be actually a part of the natural selection process. It’s our way of adapting – using our brains.
sigh First of all, the Universe is not, to our ability to observe “trillions of years old”; it is widely accepted that the age of the Universe is ~13.7Byr, plus or minus a few hundred million years.
Second, you can assert that the world was created “6000 years ago” by an omnipotent deity with such a perverse sense of humor that he decided to make everything look billions of years old, from the furtherest cosmological objects to the finest details. This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, put such an explanation on par with the scientific viewpoint, if for no other reason that you now have to explain the purpose behind such deception. I can argue that the sky is blue because angels kick all the incoming blue photons around randomly, but that doesn’t make it so.
Finally, there is a fundamental difference between Intelligent Design and the scientific theory of natural selection: the former (which does not adhere to Biblical literalism with regard to creation, despite your conflation) attempts to shoehorn Godly intervention into the gaps in existing knowledge without any correlating evidence whatsoever; the latter seeks to describe the world, and infer the history of it, by interlocking observations and a consistant set of fundamental priniciples. In other words, the former is an attempt to justify dogma, and the latter works toward a progressively refined (and occasionally punctuated) understanding of the world via observations of phenomena and falsification of hypotheses.
“Stork theory” is fine for storytime, but when it comes to reasoning things out, neither Intelligent Design nor any other pseudoscience which misrepresents ignorance for falsification (argumentum ad ignorantium) belongs in public education and certainly not under the aegis of science.
If people don’t have the background knowledge of evolutionary theory then they would lack sufficient background knowledge to enable them to understand why antibiotics become less effective over time.
Your approach would more closely resemble explaining the reasons why antibiotics diminish in effectiveness, over time, to educationally deprived people as a “just so” story, rather than a conclusion based on solid evidence to people who should already be educated in the basics of evolution.
Except that I didn’t say we shouldn’t teach evolution, so that’s not my “approach”. I just said that people who believe in creationism won’t necessarily reject the idea that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, and I haven’t seen any evidence that they do reject it from those who claim they would.
I always wonder why people think “evolution” means “creation”. I know not all think that, but a lot of people have implied it. There is absolutely no answer for what caused everything to exist, no matter how much evidence there is for evolution. I also strongly feel that nothing about life’s existence should be taught in schools.
