Just about exactly what I was settling myself down to write, and there it is – already written! The problem, indeed, is not so much whether someone understands the basic principles of evolution or even whether they accept it, which in isolation could be described as relatively unimportant for the typical ordinary person. The problem is that belief in its converse – creationism – is inextricably tied to a whole host of other anti-science baggage that leads to very bad policies when these people vote – like the current senator and chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee who says that only God can change the climate, or the Texas governor whose policy on wildfires was to pray them away.
I really don’t think it is unscientific attitudes causing your hand soap issues. The uncritical attitude it fosters may contribute a bit, but in this case I think your problem is caused by the implicit acceptance of Germ Theory combined with Marketing. Science is **causing **your problem! :smack:
More correctly, pseudo-science is causing my problem. Believing that people can or should live in a bacteria-free environment is not science, nor is believing that every microscopic thing is some kind of magical human-eating poison.
The other day, I was at Firehouse to get some lunch. The guy in front of me wanted a chicken sandwich, but…“Wait that’s not processed, is it?”
I was really *hoping *the kid behind the counter would say, “Not at all, sir. It’s still got its feathers and everything. Eat the whole thing and I guarantee you’ll get several milligrams of chicken shit.”
-VM
Despite all the hullabaloo about “scientific literacy,” the only reason the cultural left cares so much about evolution is to disprove the Bible so they can stamp out the belief that there’s a God who cares about whether people have gay sex. If it weren’t for that factor, evolution would be something only nerdy eggheaded scientists cared about. It would be important in biology classes, but outside of that, for journalists to go around asking Republican politicians if they believe in evolution would be like asking them if they believe in string theory.
Cool story, bro.
There’s your answer as to why it’s so damn important, Senegoid
You’re saying I’m proving your point, but in actuality, you’re proving mine. On a strictly factual level, I’m simply echoing what people like John Mace and DrFidelius said upthread: in everyday life for the vast majority of people, evolution is about as important as being able to do differential equations, and because there’s such a strident anti-evolution movement, there is a tendency to want to inflate its importance. The only reason people get so het up about it is because of the “culture war” factor.
It’s not important for me to know down to the nth degree how my computer or smart phone works or how the Internet works. For my purposes, it’s enough to have a vague idea. I’m not a scientist. But I’m satisfied with what I’m told by the experts; it’s consistent with what I know of science and engineering in general.
But what if it were suggested that my computer may be full of electrical components and hard drives, or it may be powered by tiny supernatural gremlins living inside it? Then I would want to get a handle on which it was. I woudn’t want two such diverse theories treated equivalently. Something is very wrong there, and I wouldn’t trust anyone who would act as though it doesn’t really matter which theory is correct.
I would suddenly become very interested in just what the hell is going on inside my computer.
I think you’re missing the point that several folks have been making, and that I agree with, which is this: it’s impossible to hold an anti-evolution view without an appalling level of scientific ignorance, so it tends to be part and parcel of a general anti-science position that is, in fact, very harmful in many areas of public policy. That’s why it’s a concern. I’m not concerned if children believe in the tooth fairy because they don’t vote and they’ll outgrow the belief by the time they grow up. I’m concerned when people who have already grown up believe the equivalent claptrap, and vote on that basis.
Being anti-evolution is not the same thing as not knowing anything about evolution. I would say you’re doing more of the same: overstating its importance (in this case, the importance of science in general) because of “culture war” factors (I assume you’re talking about global warming and vaccinations.)
As someone stated upthread, evolution is very counter-intuitive (unlike the microprocessor vs. tiny gremlin theories of cell phone operation.) I’ve had to correct my own colleagues’ (doctors) understanding of evolution, when, for example, I’ve heard someone talk as though they thought Lamarckian evolution were valid. And these are people who took college biology and in some cases were biology majors. Understanding evolution is not really relevant to their daily lives.
Tiny gremlin in cell phones? Nonsense. These devices work by using very delicate crystals to modulate the phlogiston trapped in the specially treated glass in response to controlled vibrations in the aether. Nothing magical about it.
You don’t have much confidence in our arguments. But yours seems to boil down to:
Evolution is complicated, and people are stupid. Just shut the fuck up about evolution and tell everyone God created the world, and people will be happy with that. Then we’ll be free to go after the gays and shut them down.
That’s not a compelling counter-argument. Just because science is difficult doesn’t mean you toss it in the trash and break out the Bible.
And yet the more you speak on the subject, the more we’ll find the opposite to be true, I’m sure. I have yet to meet a single anti-evolutionist that could get the facts straight concerning the subject.
I was staffing a microcomputer lab (DEC 100s under the WatDec project) at U of Waterloo back in the mid-80s. One of the English Lit grad students using the machines was a Capital C Christian, with all the baggage that goes with it. It was her first experience with any sort of a computer.
When I sent messages to her screen, I signed them as GOD, and then was careful to keep a straight face while glancing across the room to watch her reactions, which were a hoot to say the least. She believed the messages were from GOD for a couple of days until I explained that it was me sending a messages from my computer to her computer.
If there were a hell, I guess I’d be going there.
And when you consider that his starting point is “Evolution is a gay plot to destroy Christianity,” that’s going to be a heck of an impressive feat.
It took a million of them working at a million typographers, though.
Hi, everybody. I’m back, but only for a moment. I’ve got visitors coming this afternoon, so I’m dealing with that.
I’ll be back (again) later this evening (Thursday), maybe, or else tomorrow afternoon or evening.
In the meantime, I’ve read this thread up the point where I left off yesterday evening, and so far it’s helped me to clarify some of my own thinking a little bit. I’m mostly not changing my mind about anything yet, except for one point where I’m starting to waver somewhat.
That would be the problem that a hard-core YEC believer could fake his way through a bio class, get his degree, and become a “credible” “expert” then use his credentials to promote AGW denialism, “Creation Science”, etc. The alternative, which I reject, is that such a student should be flunked out of a bio class for refusing to accept subjects like evolution – that was vivalostwages position in the “trigger warning” thread, which prompted me to start this debate. Now I’m starting to wonder more about what’s the right thing to do there. I still assume that such a student, who seriously and sincerely totally rejects evolution, old-earth science and so forth, would probably do poorly in such a class no matter what.
ETA: Anyway, back later. This evening or tomorrow evening, after I catch up reading this thread.
Canadian law societies and courts are dealing with this sort of problem. A Christian law school is extremely biased against gays, so some of the law societies have refused to permit its graduates to become lawyers. http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/2056/lsuc-says-no-to-twu-law-school.html
Well, I think one of the major issues that nobody talks about is the fact that evolution/selection is closely tied with adaptation. To a conservative, adaptation is a bad thing on an individual level, everything needs to be consistent and comfortable. The message of evolution is that the beings that adapt are the ones that survive, which threatens the religious and conservative because their very ideology is by nature anti-adaptive.
So that theme needs to be a theme in the course, somewhere between subtle and blatant. It should not be a critical test-point, but it should wriggle into the students’ psyches like some kind of beneficial nematode.
Then I guess you think everyone needs to be able to do differential equations?
What are you talking about? I’m not an “anti-evolutionist.” I’m just describing why I think evolution in particular is so sacred to the left (as opposed to just one of many scientific ideas/theories/principles which, though perfectly valid, are things only nerdy eggheaded scientists care about.)