somehow, made up stories/conjecture with a materialistic basis about how things work are considered science by these folks - merely because the stories reject any spiritual reality.

Comment by amccann | January 31, 2008

The argument that people reject evolution because they don't like monkeys is, of course, silly. But Mr. Campbell shows the real reason why people reject evolution: it's counterintuitive. Fortunately, like other counterintuitive notions such as Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, evolution is supported by a huge amount of data. Common descent, for example, is about as established as anything can possibly be in science. Here's a key line of evidence:

Books used to be copied by scribes, and (despite a lot of care) sometimes typos would be introduced. Later scribes, making copies of copies, would introduce other typos. It's possible to look at the existing copies and put them into a 'family tree'. "These copies have this typo, but not that one; this other group has yet another typo, though three of them have a newer typo as well, not seen elsewhere…" This is not controversial at all when dealing with books, including the Bible.

Now, this process of copy-with-modification naturally produces 'family trees', nested groups. When we look at life, we find such nested groups. No lizards with fur or nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc. Living things (at least, multicellular ones, see below) fit into a grouped hierarchy. This has been solidly recognized for over a thousand years, and systematized for centuries. It was one of the clues that led Darwin to propose evolution.

Today, more than a century later, we find another tree, one Darwin never suspected - that of DNA. This really is a 'text' being copied with rare typos. And, as expected, it also forms a family tree, a nested hierarchy. And, with very very few surprises, it's the same tree that was derived from looking at physical traits.

It didn't have to be that way. Even very critical genes for life - like that of cytochrome C - have a few neutral variations, minor mutations that don't affect its function. Wheat engineered to use the mouse form of cytochrome C grows just fine. But we find a tree of mutations that fits evolution precisely, instead of some other tree. (Imagine if a tree derived from bookbinding technology - "this guy used this kind of glue, but this other bookbinder used a different glue…" - conflicted with a tree that was derived from typos in the text of the books. We'd know at least one tree and maybe both were wrong.)

The details of these trees are very specific and very, very numerous. There are billions of quadrillions of possible trees… and yet the two that we see (DNA and morphology) happen to very precisely match. This is either a staggering coincidence, or a Creator deliberately arranged it in a misleading manner, or… common ancestry is actually true.

(Single-celled organisms are much more 'promiscuous' in their reproduction and spread genes willy-nilly without respect for straightforward inheritance. With single-celled creatures, it looks more like a 'web' of life than a 'tree'. But even if the tree of life has tangled roots, it's still very definitely a tree when it comes to multicellular life.)

And, just for fun, here's another way that DNA analysis provides solid evidence for common descent: http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/06/endogenous-retroviruses-and-evidence.html

Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 31, 2008

Evolution is counterintuitive, but it does work. I myself have played with it and seen that random mutation plus non-random survival can, and does, lead to increasing sophistication and complexity: http://ingles.homeunix.net/software/minev/intro.html

Feel free to play with the software yourself if you like, it's available for download there.

Don't let the word 'random' throw you. Molecules of water vibrate around randomly, but water still flows downhill. Randomness is only part of evolution - not even the most interesting part - and biological evolution has nothing to do with cosmological models of the history of the overall universe.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 31, 2008

Obviously if Mr. Campbell cannot understand or imagine how evolution works, then it must not be true.

Comment by stedes | January 31, 2008

If a hand-copied book has minor errors and variations in successive "generations," are the later books superior to the earlier ones?

If an intelligent designer can write a computer program that allows one to experiment with random processes, are the processes that result really random?

Comment by Mountain Man | January 31, 2008

Mountain Man - Given a few trillion books and a few million years, sure. We can see some of that today - Google for "fortuitous typo" and see how new words and amusing connections are made and later propagated by occasional mistakes.

As to the other point, one can write a computer program to model weather, or plasma flow, or electrical currents, and get interesting and even surprising results that are confirmed by later analysis. Just because it takes intelligence to set up the simulation doesn't mean that the process it is simulating requires intelligence.

To put it another way: For the purposes of argument, I am willing to stipulate for now that there's a God that constructed the universe, imposes its laws from moment to moment, and placed the first cell upon the Earth directly, in perfect analogy to my experiment (which followed on a lot of other work and which has been quite superceded by later work). What about any of that would make evolution not work? Given those conditions, it's clear that evolution (that is to say, mutation plus selection) is capable of doing creative work, and even coming up with techniques that I, the author, did not expect and had difficulty understanding - and thus could not have 'programmed in' from the beginning.

The evidence of common descent that I posted indicates very strongly that whatever gave rise to the variety of life that we see today, it was either an evolutionary process or something very closely akin. Current evolutionary theory may not be correct in every detail, but any theory that supercedes it will have to include that data, and make very similar predictions at least in the cases we've examined so far. (Earth isn't a perfect sphere, for example - it's an oblate spheroid, bulging out a bit around the Equator - but the difference between a flat Earth and either a sphere or a spheroid is much larger than the difference between a sphere and a spheroid. Relativity explained why Newton's laws of motion didn't quite work for Mercury's orbit, but the difference was only 43 seconds of arc per century.)

Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 31, 2008

So, tell me more about the Copyist (leaving out the Author, for the moment) whose work is creating greater and greater sophistication. And also, draw into the equation the fact that the presence of the Copyist (or perhaps, other sentient beings) is required in order to interpret the content of the books and assign value and context to what the books contain. How do they know it is more sophisticated, i.e., "better?"

And finally, the interpretation of the book precipitates understanding, and, depending on the message of the book, may require action. Indeed, the action is then evaluated according to how well the implementation is pursued as compared to the Author's intent.

So many intelligent interventions into the process have left us with the inescapable conclusion that this is not an undirected process. Your analogy fails its most basic intent.

Comment by Mountain Man | January 31, 2008

No analogy is precise in all respects - it wouldn't be an analogy if there weren't differences, too. The usefulness of an analogy is in the similarities it points out - and the more similar the processes involved, the better. In the case for common descent, the book analogy is very, very accurate. The textual analysis involved doesn't depend on the subject or even, to a large extent, the language of the book - the same principles have been applied to Plato, the Bible (Old Testament, New Testament, and both together), and numerous other ancient works. It is entirely uncontroversial there; why - specifically, please - would it not apply to DNA? Why are the twin nested hierarchies of morphology and DNA so markedly coincident, when chance coincidence is at least as staggeringly improbable as any number seen in creationist calculations of abiogenesis probability?

The book analogy is limited in terms of the 'inventive' nature of evolution because of the sharply limited population size of ancient texts - at most thousands of copies, and even then only a few dozen 'generations' at most, compared to biological populations and numbers of generations in the billions. However, the other model I pointed out - the one I decided to re-implement myself - illustrates that inventive process quite well. Look up the 'Lorenz Attractor' - a very simple set of differential equations, almost a crude mockery of the convection currents that make up much of weather. And yet, they displayed surprising behavior that was clearly more than possible in real weather systems, and forced a rethinking of several principles of meteorology.

The computer model I worked on (which it's not clear you've actually looked at yet) is small, but that's actually an argument for its utility. If that kind of behavior can be displayed in such a simple environment, then even more complex behavior will be possible in a more expansive environment.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 31, 2008

[…] Another Loony Theory from the Wonderland of Evolution My rejection of evolution has everything to do with rational thinking and nothing to do with my supposed revulsion for apes and monkeys. In fact, I find chimpanzees and their cousins immensely amusing – almost as amusing as people like Lee Harris and his sublimely preposterous theory. […]

Pingback by » Loony theory | January 31, 2008

I surprised I have to explain this to you, knowing you are a person of thoughtful intellect.

Why would it not apply to DNA? Because DNA is a complex, interrelated system that must be interpreted to have any value. In other words, the code, the interpretation, and the implementation into a huge array of systems must function together in a way that does not degrade the organism. Errors are bad. Vestigal processes are not retained.

In the transcribed book, copying errors are just that, errors. They inpugn the integrity of the original, representing decay, increasing inaccuracy, and lowered utility.

That is the natural trend of things, and we instinctively know this. I build a house, and I have to continually maintain it because it would decay into the ground otherwise. It takes my intervention to simply maintain the status quo, let alone improve things.

Everything runs down. We have professional athletes today who far exceed their predecessors in speed, strength, and skill. However, they, like their fathers, will degrade over time.

What is wrong with the computer program? It is predicated on a theory that contravenes common sense and observed data.

Again, the question is not change, per se, it is advancement. The successor must be superior, not just different.

Comment by Mountain Man | January 31, 2008

Mountain Man - there are two different analogies going on here, and so far as I can tell, you are confusing them. The first is what we're calling the 'book' analogy - some copies have accumulated certain typos, other copies have different typos, and when you put them together you get 'family trees' that show descent-with-modification. Again, there is absolutely nothing controversial about this when applied to texts. It's used all the time in literary history and archeology and so forth - and, indeed, Biblical scholarship uses this as a major tool. When applied to DNA - purely as strings of codons, without regard to their function - we also see the exact same kinds of patterns, which fit descent-with-modification too well to be chance, by clear statistical measures. Moreover, the tree we deduce from this process matches, to he limit of the precision of data we have, the other "tree of life" deduced over centuries from entirely different functional and morphological considerations. Again, if this is not staggeringly good evidence for common descent, then what is it? A truly mind-boggling coincidence, or a Designer that wanted it to look like things had evolved?

The entire point of this is to demonstrate that, whatever process produced the life we see on Earth, it had to involve a process of descent with modification. Now, one could still argue that each individual mutation along the line was hand-picked by an 'intelligent agent', but that would not affect the brute fact that descent-with-modification happened.

The question now is, can natural selection account for the complexity we see or not? I presented a completely different analogy where mutation plus natural selection - pure differential survival and reproduction rates - leads to objectively increased sophistication and complexity. If the computer program is wrong, please explain why it is wrong. Where do the improved algorithms come from? I know darn well I didn't put them in there (I had trouble figuring them out when they appeared) and anyone can verify for themselves from examining the code that there's no 'secret optimizer' in there. It's not even particularly complicated code - I was a fairly new programmer then and I'm slightly embarrassed by some of the techniques I used. Indeed, my code is a from-scratch reimplementation - purely from the descriptions in published papers - of another simulation. I changed several features in my version, and yet the same behavior manifested itself. Seriously, where is the complexity coming from, if natural selection isn't developing it?

Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 31, 2008

Dennis Campbell is obviously not familiar with the Halls of Academia but I'll bet he knows a lot about Bible "colleges"

Comment by owlafaye | January 31, 2008

“For example, why are men – at least some men – attracted to women with slim waists and flaring hips? Well, because it indicates the ability to pop out babies. Preservation of the species, you know. Of course, that fails to explain why some prefer the emaciated runway model look.”

Nature vs nurture. One can largely be found where there is a lack of outside influences, i.e. advertising and the fashion industries pushing of unnatural body shapes. Look back to the seventies and early eighties and you will see more natural body shapes in the media. Since then, artificial images of an ideal shape have been pushed on people (arguably with political ideas of what is and isn’t acceptable as well).

I hope your arguments do rest on this weak initial statement…

Comment by Leigh | February 1, 2008

Obviously if Stedes cannot understand or imagine how creation worked, then it must not be true.

Comment by Trekker | February 1, 2008

Mr. Ingles,

I would be more impressed if your computer program had created itself
unaided by you. Since you had to design the initial program, that would
seem to lend more credibility to ID than to Evolution.

Comment by Burlap | February 1, 2008

Leigh
You might want to check "The Wisdom of Crowds". It explains your idea.

But, why do we have this either/or thing with Darwin and God? Is there a genetic explaination for the choice of black or white and the rejection of gray?

Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | February 1, 2008

My rejection of evolution has everything to do with rational thinking and nothing to do with my supposed revulsion for apes and monkeys. In fact, I find chimpanzees and their cousins immensely amusing – almost as amusing as people like Lee Harris and his sublimely preposterous theory.

No, you rejected something that you mistakenly claim is evolution. Based on this article, it appears that you are not sufficiently familiar with evolution to sensibly critique it. You also made comments about the big bang and abiogenesis that show that you are unfamiliar with both of those scientific concepts.

Comment by freelunch | February 1, 2008

Just to clarify this discussion a bit:

1. Do those who reject "evolution" as an explanation for species change reject all evolution, or just "human evolution"? In other words, is this discussion about the impossibility of evolution period, or the belief that humans did not evolve the way other species did?

2. For those who expressly reject the notion of human evolution: is this because in your understanding of science it is impossible for humans to have evolved? Or, is it because of a belief that modern science, in proposing evolution as an explanation, is doing this to deny the existence of God and/or challenge basic religious beliefs?

3. Assuming that your religious beliefs come from the Bible, and that the translations of the Bible into English are 100% accurate (both the words themselves, and the context in which the words are used), is it impossible to believe that the story of creation is a metaphor instead of a literal description of historical events? In other words, why is it impossible to believe in God, believe that God acts purposefully, believe that God created man, and that this creation occurred through an evolutionary process?

Those of you who know me from my previous writings know that I’m not raising these points to ridicule any belief. I’m simply attempting to clarify exactly what is at debate in this discussion.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 1, 2008

Burlap - see the third paragraph in comment #6.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 1, 2008

Thank goodness so many of you can see that Dennis' comments are unhindered by any knowledge of the subject.

I am surprised such a FunDumbMental article was printed here. This is the kind of thing that shows up on message boards that ban you as soon as you open your mouth.

The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity of this sort.

Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008

I'm not exactly sure who has the lock on stupidity here. Those who present a legitimately debatable issue, or those who foment rather than debate in the guise of offering a response?

Actually, I am sure. I can disagree with someone without basing my entire disagreement on slander and personal attack, and anti-religious bigotry. Those who can’t reinforce the very stereotypes that cause this issue to be raised in the first place.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 1, 2008

Phil,

I've converted to atheism because of owlafaye's powerful logic. He pursuaded me to give up theism on the strength of his arguments.

He's now my hero, so I will not tolerate you insulting him.

Comment by Mountain Man | February 1, 2008

…"those who present a legitimately debatable issue, "…

You're right. Putting "loony theory" in the title, "dumbass class clown" in the introduction, and "sublimely preposterous" in the conclusion is a demonstrably effective method of engendering quality debate.

Comment by felix | February 1, 2008

Felix, I read the article and I didn't see the word "dumbass."

Comment by Trekker | February 1, 2008

Where are the observations of one species evolving into another, completely
different species? The AIDS virus is the fastest-mutating on earth, yet with all
its myriad mutations it remains a virus.

Comment by Trekker | February 1, 2008

MM
I too, would convert if I knew which side of this debate owlafaye is on. Unfortunately your hero is neither clear or clearly sarcastic

Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | February 1, 2008

Ivan,

I understand your confusion, but because of my conversion I am not inclined to be sympathetic or even genial. That is not owlafaye's style, so it cannot be mine either.

However, I have yet to be fully cleansed of my theistic tendencies, so I just can't bring myself to belittle you, call you names, or go off on irrelevant tangents. You see, I'm still learning what it takes to be this kind of an atheist.

I must say, it is an attractive thing being an owlafaye atheist, because I all I have to do is belittle those who disagree with me. I really don't even have to read their posts or respond to what they write, because theists are obviously stupid, superstitious, and caught up in fairytales. This relieves me of any obligation to consider their ideas or respond to them in a civil manner.

You ought to try it.

Comment by Mountain Man | February 1, 2008

Trekker,

Animals have been mutating for millions of years, yet they remain animals.

Among animals, species tend to diverge from each other (while rare, plants are more likely to crossbreed), an excellent example of such divergence is in canis where dogs are changing from wolves and each other at an extraordinary rate. Variation is not a problem for evolution. It has been observed and the mechanism has been identified.

Comment by freelunch | February 1, 2008

Dogs and wolves have only changed in characteristics. They are still dogs and wolves. This is a very poor argument to support evolution.

Comment by Trekker | February 1, 2008

In the transcribed book, copying errors are just that, errors. They inpugn the integrity of the original, representing decay, increasing inaccuracy, and lowered utility.

You'll be happy to know that humans are merely defective versions of single-cell organisms, using your description of the process. Variation in genetics is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. Of course, natural selection has been working ever since there were enough organisms to be competing for resources, so we can look at the outcomes and say that some few variations have been successful, while most were not. As organisms became more specialized, variations were less likely to be positive, but they died out, the selection bias of natural selection tends to catch many variations that cause the organism to become more fit for its niche and make the others disappear over time. In the analogy, all of the books with copy errors that make the book useless disappear, only the improved ones go on.

Comment by freelunch | February 1, 2008

It's all life. Different organisms have different characteristics but we all have the same chemistry. As populations speciate, they do so without radical changes. Humans are still great apes, even though we are no longer of the same species as chimpanzees, bonobos or gorillas. Cats and dogs are still carnivores, even though they are separate species and separate families. Speciation happens at first by reproductive isolation, whether the speciation we see happening between dogs and wolves because most dogs are kept away from wolves, or because behaviors that make certain subpopulations unwilling to or unable to interbreed with other subpopulations.

Comment by freelunch | February 1, 2008

Pleased though I am at Mountain Man's 'deconversion', the timing is so inconvenient. I was really looking forward to getting my questions answered…

Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 1, 2008

MM-

Don't forget that in your analogy of the book copyists, that the books that are not successful, whatever that happens to mean, are discarded and all new copies arise from the successful books only. If, at some point, the copyists were not allowed to compare notes (isolation of populations) the new generations of books would diverge.

Comment by freelunch | February 1, 2008

MM-
Following your book copyist analogy, you need to remember that the copyist errors are variation and throwing away the 'unwanted' books is natural selection. If we add in a point where the copyists cannot compare notes, we have handled reproductive isolation.

Comment by freelunch | February 1, 2008

Freelunch, those are quite remarkable statements, especially since you offer not a shred of evidence and have never observed what you state as fact.

Comment by Trekker | February 1, 2008

Mr. Ingles,

In like fashion, I also was waiting for atheists to answer my questions. However, answers were not forthcoming. But as an owlafaye atheist, answers are no longer needed. Being complete assured of my own superiority, Such issues only need to be swatted away, much like a rhetorical fly meeting its end.

Having no need for a diety any longer, all I need to do is appeal to extraordinary lengths of time operating in conjunction with undirected forces. These alone produce remarkable results, far greater than my now-abandoned diety.

Without all that theistic baggage, I am now free to enter the rarified air of the scientific clubhouse. Having relieved myself of the duncecap, I can find acceptance and belonging amongst my atheist peers.

Comment by Mountain Man | February 1, 2008

Yup, quite inconvenient. Ah, well, guess I'll have to look elsewhere for the intellectual conservatives.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 1, 2008

Freelunch, those are quite remarkable statements, especially since you offer not a shred of evidence and have never observed what you state as fact.

Please start at Understanding Evolution to find out the basics of science's discoveries about evolution. If you want to learn something about why the intelligent design and anti-science creationists are wrong, you can start at the TalkOrigins Archive. If you have specific questions about evolution, please ask them.

Comment by freelunch | February 1, 2008

Trekker

You didn't say that, please say you didn't say that…………..

Laughter, lots and lots of laughter…that qualifies for a year end award of some kind…possibly: "One who had NEVER caught the brass ring"???

Maybe: "He wasn't on time even when he was Born"???

I can see I have stumbled onto a few really dumb people here…who wants to be first?

Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008

So long as we're recommending books, David Sloan Wilson's "Evolution For Everyone" is a very good read, and should help allay some of the concerns of those who may oppose evolution for ideological reasons…

Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 1, 2008

Ohhhhh free lunch…you think you know everything and you talk about wolves and dogs like poodles evolved from wolves when everyone knows they were tamed wild poodles.

Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008

You are first in line, Owlie boy. Take the bouquet. Take the garland. Wear it proudly. I have never seen anything posted by you that contained even the slightest bit of logic or intelligence. You are the Chief Babbler. I salute you. You are the king of dumb. Bow, accept your reward, and go back to the sewer in which you surely must live. I would say you are amusing, but that would be a lie. I want to say I am laughing, but pity is more appropriate. What a curious name, Owlafaye…let's see…owl, owl…of course! The wisest of the birds! A wise birdbrain! I suppose you would say that you and I are descended from monkeys, and you know, you almost have me convinced that you are half right. But, Owlie boy, the monkey in you seems to have attained ascendance. So, what are we left with? A bird-brained primate! Boy, you are in a bad way. However, the inner monkey in you is a bit amusing, but in fact, a real, live chimpanzee is much more so. Oh, Owlie, you are running around in your underwear, oblivious to the fact that you are a laughing stock. Well, maybe I
am laughing after all! Oh, pitiable you, and so unaware of your pitfulness.

Comment by Trekker | February 1, 2008

Extraordinary lengths of time occupied by undirected forces…exactly.

Nature is undirected insofar as the limits of elemental properties. The wind blows according to topographical, temperature, oceanic and river currents, and altitude influences amongst others.

We are talking 100's of millions of years here folks, not 6000.

What Darwin observed is quite obvious in the ability of various infectious agents to withstand medical efforts by evolving into new forms that counter these efforts. Just one of the many proofs of evolution.

The opposed religious are scared witless simply because they know that if Evolution is correct (and Oh indeed, yes indeed it is) it then indictes tht God does not create nor change organisms.

Evolution does not deal with creation from nothing to something as Christianity believes God does, but rather the changes in a hostile "status quo" that create new species through an evolving adaption for survival…

Evolution is quite simple.
Christians are quite complicated…starting with a "talking snake" and winding up in an obsession with toilet paper.

The whack heads run scared…beg God to intervene, and swear acceptance of His mastery over them because He swore to protect them…yet they still get whacked by Yellow Cabs.

Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008

Owlafaye, you are the king of babblers! Babble, babble, babble! Hey, boy, your underwear in slipping. Is that, is that…no, nothing is that small! (Laughter and more laughter). Why is it that fools delight in making fools of themselves? The nature of the beast, I guess….

Comment by Trekker | February 1, 2008

Owlie boy, why are you so insistent on making a fool of yourself? Are you an angry midget? A self-hating homosexual? An adolescent who can't get a date? There must be some, I gag at the thought, evolutionary reason why you parade yourself around like some circus sideshow. Let us in on the secret. Why? Don't be shy, little fella. Come clean. Are you a masochist? Did your mommy refuse to breastfeed you? You sound like a toddler with a dirty diaper. What is your major maladjustment?

Comment by Trekker | February 1, 2008

If you want to say something, stop wasting your time here and try to convince editors that your poetry is contemporary, significant and contributory.

Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008

Recently I was told that all dogs have evolved from wolves. This only begs one question: Where are the two wolves that spawned a saint bernard? We have a historical record of homosapiens walking the earth for over six thousand years (Incas, Aztecs, Mayans, etc.) Yet, there is still no evidence of the evolution of mankind in that time span. People are still born with non funtional deformities, but noone has learned to levitate, read a person's mind, see through objects, or even operate with more than 10% of their brains. And if you have a problem with the Bible, please explain to me how the largest sea salt deposit in the world managed to find itself over 1 mile high in the Andes mountains.

Comment by detn8or69 | February 1, 2008

"if Evolution is correct (and Oh indeed, yes indeed it is) it then indictes tht God does not create nor change organisms."

*** This is a complete non sequitur. There’s no reason to believe that God cannot create man (or any other organism) through an evolutionary process. This is only a false statement if one or two conditions apply:

(1) An individual conflates what one religion teaches about God with the true nature of God. [Or, as a subset of this, things that a religion teaches are accepted literally when they should be understood metaphorically]. In either case, there is no malice involved here, just an effort to try and understand how and why the universe actually operates.

(2) On the other hand, believing that if human evolution exists therefore God does not exist is simple stupidity at best, and religious bigotry at worse. It's exactly the reason why certain proponents of a purely scientific explanation are looked upon with suspicion for harboring hidden agendas.

It’s interesting that many of those who defend their beliefs about the inadequacy of the current scientific explanation of human evolution have a more sophisticated view of the way the universe was created and works than some of the self-professed defenders of science who substitute personal attacks for any intellectual debate.

It’s the difference between calling someone’s ideas “dumb”, which is a criticism to be debated, and calling someone a “dumbass”, which is a personal insult.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 2, 2008

detn8or69,

I cannot tell if you are serious are just parodying creationists.

Comment by freelunch | February 2, 2008

Mr. Jackson,

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence about the true nature of God. All we have is religious doctrine. Since various religions and sects have competing, conflicting doctrines about God, there is no reasonable way to rely on those doctrines.

In my experience, we are more likely to run into an outspoken believers who reject the evidence for evolution and create the false dichotomy of "God or evolution" than we are to find those who argue that the evidence for evolution is evidence against God. I don't recall ever seeing someone from the latter group, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that science defenders also have a few ignorant hangers-on.

I'm not at all certain by what you mean by "a more sophisticated view of the way the universe was created and works". The theory of evolution is strongly supported by evidence and the discoveries over the past century and a half have consistently reaffirmed that evolution happens. They have also shown how it happens. The critics of evolution are rarely scientists of any type. They don't offer a testable hypothesis as an alternative to evolution. Non-evolutionary creationism is a religious doctrine. Intelligent design is creationism dressed in secular drag (Judge John E. Jones III did an excellent analysis of it in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. He was so annoyed with the lies told in his courtroom by the ID/Creationists, that he practically begged the local federal prosecutors to indict those who were lying to him in court. Of course, that never happened. Jones may have been appointed by Bush, but Bush could not fire him. The same could not be said about federal prosecutors).

Comment by freelunch | February 2, 2008

Trekker,

Don't pay any attention to Owlafaye and don't let him get under your skin. He's just a ranter with nothing to say worth reading. He was best described by Shakespeare when he wrote, "A tale told by an idiot, all sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Comment by Burlap | February 2, 2008

detn8or69 - For a much clearer picture of how species really do come about, look up ‘ring species’. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) The Larus gulls are several subspecies where variants live in a ring around the Arctic. The Herring Gull in the U.K. can interbreed with the American Herring Gull, and the American can interbreed with the Vega Gull in Russia. And so on, until you come to the Lesser Black-Backed Gull in the Netherlands. It can’t breed with the Herring Gull.

So, is it a separate species? You could breed with its relative to the East, and so on. But what if, say, the Vega Gull went extinct? Would you have separate species then?

Now, imagine such variations happening across time instead of (or as well as) space, and you’ve got an idea how species actually do form, instead of the ’saltationist’ strawman that many try to imply.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 2, 2008

freelunch: I'm contrasting the discussion of those who start from the assumption that something created the universe, that something being "God" (which is different than the notion of God as a religious icon), with nonsensical statements that if evolution is correct, then God doesn't exist. Understanding the mechanism by which something happens does not equate to denying that something/someone created the object under discussion. I understand how a car is manufactured and runs. That doesn't disprove the existence of General Motors.

There's plenty of ground for reasoned debate on this subject along the lines of the questions I posed in comment #18. Statements like “if Evolution is correct (and Oh indeed, yes indeed it is) it then indictes tht God does not create nor change organisms,” are in a word, stupid.

I believe in God, and believe (as a general principle) in human evolution, though I think many of the so-called details to demonstrate this are very incomplete, and perhaps even wrong. This has not caused me to condemn as religious bigots people who rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible to explain man's presence on earth. Nor has it caused them to condemn me to Hell for my beliefs. I've also debated this issue with self-professed atheists who see things quite differently regarding the existence of God. For the most part, it’s been a respectful, intellectual exchange. That is, until someone comes along who’s only interested in throwing bombs and insulting people who hold an opposite view. So, on balance, I’m comfortable observing that those who hold religious beliefs have shown themselves to be more willing to engage in legitimate debate than those who deny that God exists. And to round out this observation, it’s a crude, unsophisticated view of reality to assume that if man can understand how something works, then God cannot exist.

By the way, not to go over old ground, but I approached the subject of the existence of God without relying on religious teachings in "What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?", and later in "The True nature of Human Morality" (both in the archives). God can be discussed, and even presumed to exist, without relying on one religion's doctrines.

Take care, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 2, 2008

Mr. Jackson,

You don't run in the right religious circles. There are many, particularly American, conservative evangelical and fundamentalist religious folks who reject everything about evolution, claim that accepting evolution is rejecting God, and consider those who accept theistic evolution to be no different from evil atheists. Some even insist on a young earth. They aren't interested in any evidence that shows that their doctrines about biology are false. Along with evolution, they also reject modern cosmology.

I don't try to get into discussions about the existence of God or gods, since there's no evidence to work with. It appears to be a matter of faith, unlike science which only relies on evidence. I suppose that those who you agree with about the existence of God are more likely to be polite to you than they are when they are discussing the existence of God with someone who does not accept any claims about gods existing, because there is no evidence to support it.

What we do know is that the evidence shows us the evolution happened whether God exists or not. Mr. Campbell claimed otherwise, despite his apparent ignorance of the scientific evidence that shows that evolution happened. It's not even clear from the article that he understands what evolution is. If one wants to argue against evolution, then he needs to talk about evolution, not about cosmology or abiogenesis or erroneous analogies to computer code. He also needs to read the Kitzmiller decision and the transcripts of the trial that show that ID is creationism, that the book that the creationists wanted in the school had started out as a creationist text and was (badly) edited after the Supreme Court reminded them that they cannot teach their religious doctrines in science class. I have no use for lies, no matter where they come from. They are certainly not excused because the person telling the lie is motivated by religious doctrine to tell it, particularly if they belong to a religious body that condemns bearing false witness.

Mr. Campbell claims to have logic on his side, but if he does not understand the bases of the claims of science, as it appears, his claim to disagree on logical grounds cannot stand. He needs to understand the theory, the evidence that supports the theory, and the method by which the theory has been tested and improved before he can critique it on logical grounds. Until he is at that point, his opinion about evolution is not useful, except in showing scientists what a representative American thinks about a scientific theory that they don't understand.

Comment by freelunch | February 2, 2008

“Mr. Jackson, You don’t run in the right religious circles.”

*** Freelunch: I don’t run in any religious circles at all! I’m a non-practicing Catholic who, in addition to my science-fiction writings, has co-authored a novel about Catholic theology with one of the Church’s leading theoriticians! I don’t think there’s even a category for me.

What I respect are people who approach a debate respectfully and with some degree of intellectual honesty. I don’t accept all of the assumptions of some of the folks who’ve spoken on behalf of religion, just as I don’t accept all of the assumptions of folks who speak on behalf of science. Yet, I’ve had just as many good, honest, and ultimately rewarding exchanges with the “religious side” as I have had with the “scientific” and at times “atheist” side.

However, just to be clear, when a fool (not you — you’ve been reasonable and respectful in all my exchanges with you) enters the debate, I have no qualms about abandoning respect (since respect is either mutual, or non-existent) and calling an idiot an idiot. These people have no real interest in debate, just rhetoric and insults.
I understand what you said about some conservative evangelical and fundamentalist religious folks rejecting everything about evolution, but I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusion that it is because doing so “rejects God”. Yes, in a certain sense it does in their view. But mostly I’ve found it to be a deep seated mistrust of hidden scientific agendas that implicitly or explicitly reject any notion of God. It’s the agenda-driven rhetoric that drives their stands — some of it on display here in others’ comments. I will confess to a similar general bias.

When “science” tells me that man is predominately responsible for heating the earth, I look at the hidden agendas behind these statements. Again not to belabor the point, but look at the first article I wrote on “An Even More Inconvenient Truth: The Myth of Man-Made Global Warming”, and see what I said about the Natural Resources Defense Council. Listening to modern-day scientific pronouncements is like reading the New York Times. My initial reaction is always the same — “imagine if that was really true!”

Yes, there are some people who believe sincerely that the earth is 6000 years old, and reject other scientific conclusions that I personally have no problem accepting. I’ve debated some of them publicly and privately at length. I didn’t persuade them of my position any more than they persuaded me. Yet, the discussion was still a good one because it forced both sides to deal with issues they normally either avoid or assume to be true/false. And while the people debating may not have changed each others minds, those undecided looking in could see it unfold and evaluate the issue accordingly.

But again I will stress, while you and others like Raymond Ingles have never insulted my intelligence, some of those who support your views are so blatantly bigoted against all religion that those hidden agenda issues surface again and, fairly or not, taint all people on your side.

The real problem here is that this matter we’re discussing (human evolution) can never be settled conclusively on one side or the other. Those who start with religion, or like me, start with a firm belief in God, aren’t persuaded that all the answers to the universe come through science. Those who start with science, and either reject God out of hand, or say that God is not measurable by humans so God cannot be a factor in any explanation in any way shape or form, are never going to appreciate arguments from those who think otherwise.

I don’t know Mr. Campbell personally, but I understand why he has lashed out against “science”, because it’s the same intuitive feelings I have. I grew up believing that science was an intellectually honest discipline. Then I got older and wiser, read Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, got to know actual scientists, and watched what science told me about things like “a new ice age”, that quickly became “global warming”, that is now transitioning into “global climate change” — all to fit a political agenda. Is all science bad and all are scientists corrupt. Obviously no. But I need more than “scientific logic” to persuade me that the answer I’m given is the whole answer, and an accurate one at that.

As for the religious fundamentalist thinking you identified, are they “logical”? Obviously not, if logic is only that which science teaches. I know that love is real, but science has not measured love. [Lust is not love]. Science has theories and hypotheses, but no proof that can actually explain it. Yet intuitively I know it is real. Science explains a lot about the world, but it doesn’t explain everything. And when science is used to deny the existence of God (vs. say, as you did, that the existence of God “appears to be a matter of faith, unlike science which only relies on [material] evidence”), then I reject that science.

I can’t tell you what God “looks like”, where He “is”, or even “what” He is. Since I don’t know God through science, I don’t need science to validate His existence. I don’t ask “science” to believe in Jesus, Allah, or any other manifestation of God. But I do ask science to leave open the possibility that because science can’t prove it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Others on both sides of this debate may share some, all, or none of my views, which is why I stressed earlier that if we’re going to have a discussion, we need to define what we’re actually talking about. Otherwise it’s just a series of parallel rants and raves on both sides.

Having said all this, I believe there is ample ground for intelligent debate and discussion on the matter. But only after all the a**holes have left the room. :)

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 2, 2008

Phil:

Your comment number 18 was a valiant attempt to clarify the debating points, but evolution is an emotional issue for many and reasoned, logical debate is as impossible for them as for a Las Vegas crap shooter to calmly discuss existentialism while he has a $10,000 bet riding on 8 the hardway. And, that’s equally true for both sides; religious fanatics are evenly matched by Darwinian fanatics, each group driven by the same emotional needs.

And, there are other reasons to reject evolution than the ones you listed; one that quickly comes to mind is that evolution is bad science driven by ideology and a desire to separate the taxpayers from their money. I don’t know if others contributing to this comment thread have read your essay “To Vote or Not to Vote; That is the Question” – I’d recommend it if they haven’t, because it has a lot to say about evolution and science.

Sorry, couldn’t resist being enigmatic, but in one of your “To Vote or Not to Vote” essay comments you say this about voters clinging to ideology in American politics: “Those who don’t recognize this tendency become “disillusioned” because the illusion they operate under is not real.” Here, you are talking about the voters’ “illusions” regarding how our political system actually works. Your insight describes a process - becoming disillusioned with politics - but, left unspoken, is the assumption the voters had some illusions to lose. And, since we’re not born with illusions about our political system, somewhere along the way we must have acquired them. It’s the same process with evolution and for the same reasons.

Consider how our political illusions are installed as we grow intellectually; primarily it’s through formal education, but also through parents, friends, entertainment and news media, etc. Now, assume we turned a small army of Phil Jackson’s loose on junior high or high school students throughout the nation and you and your many clones carefully explained to students exactly how politics works, what motivates politicians and how the “spoils” system operates to distribute taxpayer wealth to the favored few. You’re an intelligent, well-educated man who has made many observations after a career spent working in politics and formed expert opinions based on those observations. Who better to explain the system and keep students from forming naïve illusions about our political system – illusions that may later shatter and drive these students to become cynical voters or citizens who prefer not to vote at all? And, what’s wrong with young people hearing reality from an expert and developing informed opinions about politics based on that same reality?

For many, the answer would be the kids are too young and “not ready” to hear a Phil Jackson shatter what few illusions they have about our political system. Better they retain these naïve illusions until later when they have more maturity. For some always unspoken reason, American students are encouraged to diligently acquire illusions, even though these same illusions make them ignorant citizens and highly vulnerable to manipulation by others. I don’t know if you agree with the foregoing analysis, but from what I know about our education system there aren’t many Phil Jackson type teachers explaining the “real” world of American politics to students.

Now, imagine the same process going on with evolution. And, imagine the spoils system for special interests is just as real for science as it is for the highway construction business. If you visit the campus of the National Institutes of Health and look at the many fine buildings, notice who the buildings are named after. Famous scientists or famous medical doctors maybe – not hardly, more like famous politicians who were “kind” to science when it came time to vote on budget appropriations.

And what’s wrong this image – scientists have to eat, have to make lease payments on the BMW, save for the kids’ college, etc. Are any of the noble and vociferous defenders of evolution sending monthly checks to science? C’mon, there is nothing wrong with admitting that evolution is funded by the taxpayers, whether we agree with the science or not.

And how is knowledge about evolution implanted in students? The same way as knowledge about our political system, of course – through formal education, the media, parents, etc.. Educators and education theory focus on the theoretical concept of evolution initially and students are expected only to grasp the overall concept; in fact, the questions regarding evolution on state mandated tests will specifically address the concept only. Students aren’t asked or expected to critique evolution theory or offer opinions on whether the “proofs” of evolution are valid.

Now, is it that hard to imagine, that given this approach, students may develop illusions about the science supporting evolution? In fact, in evolution’s case, it’s illegal in this country for a Phil Jackson type to discuss with high school students the scientific problems with evolution. We know for a fact that widely used textbooks presented bogus “proofs” supporting evolution for many decades; if they hadn’t then why did textbook writers begin omitting certain of these “proofs” once the word leaked out?

Phil, you aren’t into mocking or taunting your intellectual adversaries (perhaps with the exception of Dan), but rather you try to convince with reason, observations, facts and appeals to logic. I’m sure you’ve sighed with frustration a few times over some folks’ obstinacy in clinging to ideals about politics you know are both naïve and unworkable. Now, for a moment, apply that same perspective to evolution’s true believers. It isn’t about God or how people feel when they look at gorillas, it’s about carefully implanted “illusions” and always has been.

Comment by Pat Skurka | February 3, 2008

…"When “science” tells me that man is predominantly responsible for heating the earth, I look at the hidden agendas behind these statements."…

I don't think that even Al Gore, with his publically stated concerns about the increase in atmospheric temperature, would assert that man is responsible for heating the earth. The earth is heated by residual gravitational heat, by the latent heat arising from the earth's core, and by decaying radioisotopes, among other causes.

Comment by felix | February 3, 2008

Felix: Yes, you are correct. The wording was sloppy. It was a quick way to convey the image that AlGore claims that man is primarily responsible for a rise in global temperatures, not changes in the sun or natural climatic cycles. The point is, more and more contemporary science arrives at conclusions by "consensus". As I discussed at length in my essay, this consensus is driven by political agendas, not the strict scientific method.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 3, 2008

Mr. Jackson,

Anthropogenic causes of atmospheric changes that lead to a changing climate, one that is warming in net are well documented. To oppose these discoveries because of their implications, or to overly simplify them in order to condemn them, shows a decided anti-science bias. Reality exists. It is up to humans to deal with reality.

Comment by freelunch | February 3, 2008

Freelunch. Read my article in the IC archives "An Even More Inconvenient Truth …", and then tell me about "reality".

No one says that man doesn't have an impact on the Earth. The question is, how exactly is this measured over a 150 year period to separate man's impact from nature, to what extent can any changes be tied to natural forces regardless of man, to what extent "consensus" (which involves a lot of non-scientists offering judgments) has replaced the scientific method for arriving at a conclusion, and to what extent "science" is being used to further specific political agendas.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008

Pat — excellent summary! Science doesn't take place in a vacuum. It's always been used to further political (or personal) agendas. Unfortunately, in recent decades this tendency has become even more blatant.

I'm a person who is normally inclined to accept evolution as an explanation for humans on earth. But just because I think the concept makes sense, doesn't mean that any "proof" will do. Or that those who believe otherwise should be dismissed out of hand.

Follow the money and ideology in science today, and you'll understand a lot about why "scientific consensus" is the current fad.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008

Mr. Jackson,

I have read your article. No scientists that I am aware of ignore the role that natural processes play in the change in climate over time. If you would name some and show us the journal articles in which they do this, I would be appreciative.

I notice that you did not refer to any scientific journal articles in your critique of the science under review nor did you show us that you interviewed any scientists or professors of climatology for the article. Despite that, you were also willing to take a shot at scientists and defame the process of science research in graduate schools. I would never assume that your Ph.D. in political science was as poorly conceived and defended as you imply the degrees of scientists can be.

I agree with you completely that people who make policy recommendations often jump to unjustified conclusions about how their policies would solve the problem. It was not and still is not clear to me how the Kyoto approach would be successful. It strikes me as much more useful for us to spend money preparing for the anticipated climate change by protecting areas that are most at risk and making other changes that allow us to adjust to the change. Given the evidence available, Kyoto doesn't appear to be an adequate response and an attempt to go further down that path seems likely to be exceedingly cost inefficient.

Comment by freelunch | February 4, 2008

Dr. Jackson - You state that "some of those who support your views are so blatantly bigoted against all religion that those hidden agenda issues surface again and, fairly or not, taint all people on your side."

Well, "fairly or not", there's a certain "taint" of "bigotry" on those who oppose evolution. There are quite a large number of people who reject the idea without any investigation whatsoever, as is clear by the rather fundamental misunderstandings that get cited over and over again. And attempts to bring up confirming evidence are dismissed out of hand or completely ignored. (For example, no one - not one person so far - has even attempted to address the 'twin nested hierarchies' evidence for universal common descent that I brought up.)

What's interesting is that the "deep seated mistrust of hidden scientific agendas" that you discuss doesn't generally extend to other areas, besides theories and work that are perceived to "implicitly or explicitly reject any notion of God". Relativity and QM don't generally get questioned except by those people who decide for whatever reason that they contradict the Bible, or Koran, or whatever. Geology gets a bit more of that treatment than other disciplines, because if you accept that anything like the standard models of geology are correct, then descent-with-modification pops out again, almost automatically, from the fossil record. (Reports of the dearth of transitional fossils are, to echo Twain, 'greatly exaggerated'.)

The problem isn't really that evolution argues against god(s) - it's just that evolution undermines what used to be the one of the most powerful argument for god(s). It used to be 'clear' that the only way the complex and functional systems of living things could form 'had to be' the result of intelligence at work. (David Hume pointed out the inherent problems with this kind of argument, but was unable to imagine an alternative.) Evolution illustrates that the case isn't quite the 'slam dunk' that was once supposed, and some people find this disturbing.

I really don't see the 'anti-God' agenda at work in evolutionary science. God is not invoked as an explanatory force, but as I've already discussed elsewhere, 'unknowable-by-definition' entities can't be invoked in scientific explanations. However, that does not mean that science labors mightily to reject God, no matter how implausible the alternative. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer in science, and gets used more often than most people know (or are willing to credit).

Even more, science, can see design, in quite a wide variety of areas. SETI has some fairly rigid standards for what would count as a non-random, artificial signal. The problem with the 'intelligent design' types so far is that they are working backward from the answer they want, and the tools they've come up with don't actually work in other situations. See, for example, here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/the-intelligent-3.html#more This does put some limits on exactly how much interference a God can have had in the process. I've pointed out before that, statistically speaking, we can't detect any significant deviation from random in the mutations we've studied. Like Laplace, so far in evolution "we've had no need of the 'design hypothesis'" to explain the data we've uncovered.

As I've freely and explicitly pointed out, over and over again (like in comment #6 which I've referred to before), evolution by itself does not disprove gods. There are plenty of unknowns about how life got started, and "God did it" is not at all ruled out so far. However, as a precedent some people find it worrying; life really did used to appear to be a 'slam dunk', so it can at least cast some doubt on the other cases made for god(s).

Kuhn, BTW, did not show that science was not an "intellectually honest discipline". He identified that scientists are human, and that politics and preconceptions do affect the process. That's not the same thing as showing that only politics and preconceptions affect the process. Even a small bias in favor of the actual data (and I would argue that bias in science is not small) can add up to a clear direction in the long term. Small biases over long-term trends are how casinos stay in business, after all.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 4, 2008

RI writes:
"I really don't see the 'anti-God' agenda at work in evolutionary science."

Have you read Richard Dawkins? He writes a wonderful book on evolution and then ruins it with a final chapter that says, "That's why I’m an Atheist and you should be too"

Freelunch writes: "No scientists that I am aware of ignore the role that natural processes play in the change in climate over time."
Check out Bjorn Lonborg, the Skeptical Environmentalist a self admitted socialist and member of Greenpeace who says Al Gore is wrong. I saw him on CSPAN. It's not that he does not believe in man made warming. He just says that the warnings are exaggerated. For example: for every person who dies of heat, 10 will be saved from freezing.

Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | February 4, 2008

“I have read your article. No scientists that I am aware of ignore the role that natural processes play in the change in climate over time. If you would name some and show us the journal articles in which they do this, I would be appreciative.”

*** No, they don’t “ignore” natural processes. They simply ignore the fact that the evidence they use to support their theory that man — and man alone — is predominately responsible for a new ice age, I mean global warming, I mean global climate change, is incomplete and based on inaccurate data, not to mention riddled with hidden political agendas.

“I notice that you did not refer to any scientific journal articles in your critique of the science under review nor did you show us that you interviewed any scientists or professors of climatology for the article. Despite that, you were also willing to take a shot at scientists and defame the process of science research in graduate schools. I would never assume that your Ph.D. in political science was as poorly conceived and defended as you imply the degrees of scientists can be.”

*** My Ph.D. is in policy analysis, and the article I wrote was about how political agendas are being inserted into this supposedly scientific process. On this matter I believe I’m more than qualified to offer the comments I did.
But since you have now raised the subject of credentials, exactly what is your Ph.D. in, and how does that relate to the substance of your comments?

And since quoting stories that relate to scientific analysis, and the scientists themselves who offer these judgments, and quoting primary source material like History of the Exploration of the Norwegian Sea is, in your opinion, inadequate to demonstrate these agendas and biases, let me refer you to a partial list of actual scientists who support the points I made in my article:

• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.” Baliunas and Soon wrote that “there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content.”

• Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: “It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

• Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown.”

• George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: “The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation …, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities … . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”

• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.”

• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: “global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035″

• William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.” “I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.” “So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.”

• George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: “What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural.”

• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: “About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.”

• Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: “The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned.”

• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming “is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole”

• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”

• Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: “We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate… It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it”.

• Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: “So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.”

• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: “[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. … [A]bout 2/3’s (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.” His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: “The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect.” “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”

• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]here’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.”

• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: “…the myth is starting to implode. … Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor…”

• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: “Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover.”

• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: “At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model …, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. … Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge.”
Scientists in the following section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: “[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement …, there is so far no definitive evidence that ‘most’ of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. … [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term ‘most’ in their conclusion is baseless.”

• Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): “The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.”

• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: “[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. … At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models.”

• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports “I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.”

• William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, “It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system.”

• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: “There is evidence of global warming. … But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.”

• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: “The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.”

• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: “We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.” “[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.”

• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: “We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind.”

“ It strikes me as much more useful for us to spend money preparing for the anticipated climate change by protecting areas that are most at risk and making other changes that allow us to adjust to the change.”

*** I agree in principle. But I’m still not going to retrofit a home in Utah and put it on stilts because someone with incomplete science combined with hidden political agendas thinks I should do so to protect against the coming worldwide flood (which could be between 3 inches and 75 feet).

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008

Mr. Ivanovich - Which book are you talking about? The only books of his that I'm familiar with that state things like that are popularizations of evolutionary science, not works of evolutionary science themselves. If you look at actual work in evolutionary biology, I don't see an 'anti-God' agenda. I see a 'pro-explanation' agenda, but that's not the same thing.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 4, 2008

Mr. Ivanovich,

Scientists do not do science in books. The fact that Dawkins objects strenuously to religions and actions of religious folks in his books does not affect science. The work that is done by scientists in science journals is all that counts. I doubt that you can find any evidence that any scientist of any sort is showing any 'anti-God' bias in their scientific work. Whether a scientist is researching evolution or the climate or anything else, the conclusions are all drawn from the data. Even if there is a mistake, the mistake ends up being corrected as the research is tested. Sometimes, as in the case of Pons and Fleischmann, the mistake is very embarrassing. The biggest problem in understanding our climate is that there is a lot of data and there are people who oversimplify it for their own purposes in their public pronouncements. Eventually, the facts get through, even our President is slowly understanding the impact of certain human activities on the climate.

Comment by freelunch | February 4, 2008

Dr. Jackson, I asked for scientific journal articles, not unsourced quotes, some of which apear to be out of context. Quote mining has a long and embarrassing history among creationists, do you recommend that others who object to science also indulge in it? Since you keep insisting that the climatological theory is that humans are responsible for all of the change, please provide a proper peer-reviewed article as a reference that "They simply ignore the fact that the evidence they use to support their theory that man — and man alone — is predominately responsible …", not more unsubstantiated assertions.

Please show me in the journal articles where your thesis is valid.

Comment by freelunch | February 4, 2008

“Well, ‘fairly or not’, there’s a certain ‘taint’ of ‘bigotry’ on those who oppose evolution. There are quite a large number of people who reject the idea without any investigation whatsoever, as is clear by the rather fundamental misunderstandings that get cited over and over again. And attempts to bring up confirming evidence are dismissed out of hand or completely ignored.”

*** Raymond: I am not required to believe what scientists say because they are scientists. I am not required to accept as proof what scientists say is proof. This is not bigotry. This is disagreement.

However, it’s one thing to say “I don’t believe you/science’s explanation”, and another to say “I suggest you rip out your soul and eat it” because you’re a “FunDummie fanatic”. That’s not disagreement, that’s bigotry.

“What’s interesting is that the 'deep seated mistrust of hidden scientific agendas' that you discuss doesn’t generally extend to other areas, besides theories and work that are perceived to 'implicitly or explicitly reject any notion of God'.

*** Well, it extends to the notion of man-made global warming, which doesn’t involve a direct attack on religious faith or the belief in God.

Not all science has hidden agendas. But enough science does, and it's wise to treat these with caution. Human evolution and Global Warming are two examples. They involve different agendas/motivations, but the agendas are there.

“The problem isn’t really that evolution argues against god(s) - it’s just that evolution undermines what used to be the one of the most powerful argument for god(s).”

*** I agree that this is true in some cases. But not all cases. Certain people with deeply held religious beliefs may react as if human evolution in and of itself denies God. But this isn’t always the case. I believe in God and the possibility of human evolution, with no apparent contradictions. And you may believe in evolution in and of itself without using it to promote atheism. But as this comment section indicated, there are enough a**holes who want to use evolution as a club against religion for religious people to view the motivations of scientists with some caution.

“Kuhn, BTW, did not show that science was not an ‘intellectually honest discipline’. He identified that scientists are human, and that politics and preconceptions do affect the process.”

*** If a “pure” system is systematically abused and misused by people with biases and agendas, then the outcome from that system is tainted. It doesn’t really matter to me whether pure facts are distorted, or distorted facts are represented “fairly”. At the end of the day the conclusions of each are equally suspect.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008

Dr. Jackson, show me an example of these alleged hidden agendas in scientific papers. Evolution would be a great field for you to provide us an example in since you repeatedly imply that this is a field that has this problem. Show me how they biased the results of the paper. Show me what method you used to distinguish in these papers between high-quality research being done by scientists and biased presentation.

Comment by freelunch | February 4, 2008

Freelunch:

Follow this link and you get the sources you asked for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Incidentally, I didn’t see any objection you had to the Natural Resources Defense Council making pronouncements about man-made global warming. You didn’t challenge the scientific basis for their conclusions. You’ve simply accepted them without requiring a similar exercise that you now demand from me.

As a policy analyst, I might say this is instructive of a certain thought process I highlighted in my essay. By the way, I asked for your credentials to object to my policy analysis of the hidden agendas associated with man-made global warming. Where is it?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008

Freelunch: Since you’ve defined the debate now as an exercise of quoting scientific journals, please cite for me the scientific journals that irrevocably state that man-made global warming (a) exists, (b) has resulted in specific degree of climate change independent of other natural forces, and (c) can be fixed or altered by man-made actions.

When you do this to support your assertion that “It strikes me as much more useful for us to spend money preparing for the anticipated climate change by protecting areas that are most at risk and making other changes that allow us to adjust to the change,” then I’ll be more inclined to take your objections seriously, instead of repeatedly raising straw men for me to knock down before going onto your next invented challenge.

You maintain that scientists have no agenda (otherwise you wouldn’t need validation of this statement from me), and that man-made global warming is real. Okay, prove it. I backed up my policy analysis with a detailed review of the policy making of the NRDC. Now do the same for me as a scientist proving your scientific beliefs.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008

Dr. Jackson - Evolution is "foolishness". It "fundamentally is an illogical – make that irrational – concept." "Frankly, I am more inclined to believe in the Tooth Fairy. I would rather sandpaper a bobcat’s butt in a phone booth than completely jettison rational thinking, which is what the cosmic leap of faith necessary to believe this fairy tale requires." "But it gets more absurd." The "story just gets loonier and loonier. To believe it one must function at a high order of gullibility."

Is that the kind of bigotry you're talking about? If dorks like owlafaye somehow count against people who actually discuss the issues around - much less actual evidence for - evolution, then how can prose like Mr. Campbell's not count against those who insist on 'creation' in its varied forms?

You're right, there is a difference between disagreement and bigotry. But to quote Larry Niven, "There is no cause so noble it will not attract some kooks." I really don't understand how you appear to excuse the kooks on the creationist side while simultaneously asserting that the kooks supporting evolution "taint all people on your side".

I have a modest proposal. How about we ignore the kooks - many of whom are only in it for the attention anyway - and actually discuss the issues and evidence at hand? What do the kooks have to do with whether evolution is true or not?

Moving on, I didn't even assert that science was 'pure' - but let's see. Is there any human system on Earth that isn't "systematically abused and misused by people with biases and agendas", including every single religious sect on Earth? Asking that science be held to a higher standard than every other human endeavor seems, to me, a bit much. I'm having a hard time understanding what your point was, though, if that wasn't it.

My point was that, even with contrary tendencies and human foibles, science can have a tendency to reject error over time, and this can add up. Even mostly random processes - which I'd argue science isn't - with even small biases - though I'd argue science has more than small biases toward rejecting error - can exhibit clear direction over time. Our own bodies rely on this every instant; see here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/buffeted_by_the_winds_of_chanc.php#more

Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 4, 2008

Raymond:

Calling something absurd, looney, a fairy tail, etc. is not bigotry. Even going so far as to say “I would rather sandpaper a bobcat’s butt in a phone booth than completely jettison rational thinking, which is what the cosmic leap of faith necessary to believe this fairy tale requires” is not bigotry. Its criticism. Hyperbolic criticism perhaps, but where is the malice that is the hallmark of bigotry?

You and I have debated about atheism and disagreed at times vehemently. But I haven’t condemned you to Hell, said that you are a pervert because of what you believe, or claimed that you must be mentally retarded. You’ve debated evolution with religious fundamentalists and expressed yourself forcefully. You haven’t found it necessary to ridicule their belief in God, though you certainly question it. This is debate. It’s heated at times, but it isn’t bigoted.

Like I said earlier, it’s the difference between calling an idea “dumb”, and the person holding that idea a “FunDummie fanatic”. And this is why Campbell’s commentary is entirely different than owlafaye.

You (and others) have laid out the scientific position. You’re not going to convince people who view the world from a different perspective and argue their positions accordingly. But like I said before, there’s value in this to help the undecided decide, and to force each side to recognize and address certain issues.

As to your proposal that we “ignore the kooks - many of whom are only in it for the attention anyway - and actually discuss the issues and evidence at hand?”, you’ve got my vote! I’ve been arguing for that all along. Just be prepared to have a string of parallel conversations since each side is starting this debate from a different perspective, and thus what constitutes logic and evidence isn’t the same to everyone.

I’m the odd guy out in the middle, I guess. I’m pretty much in your camp regarding a lot of the mechanics you discuss, though I think some things aren’t as well developed as science thinks they are. And there’s those hidden agendas I keep spotting here and there whenever science addresses a controversial issue.

Nevertheless, I think the basic concept is correct. On the other hand, I have no problem believing that there is a God, and He’s the one who gave all of this a purposeful start.

So I guess that makes me what — the referee? (just kidding).

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008

Dr. Jackson,

I never defended NRDC, so I have no idea why you think I should defend what they have had to say.

By the way, I asked for your credentials to object to my policy analysis of the hidden agendas associated with man-made global warming.

Yes, you did, but as you know, science doesn't care about credentials. Worrying about credentials is just an attempt to force an argument from authority. I assure you that my education in science does not make me any more of an authority on science than you are. I also notice that you still haven't answered my question about 'hidden agendas' by actually providing evidence from science journal articles that can be identified as hidden agendas.

please cite for me the scientific journals that irrevocably state that man-made global warming (a) exists, (b) has resulted in specific degree of climate change independent of other natural forces, and (c) can be fixed or altered by man-made actions.

Irrevocably state? Since you have critiqued science, you know that no science articles ever make irrevocable claims. So far, you have not used science to back up your claims about anthropogenic climate change or your claims about hidden agendas. When will your critique include science? Let's try to keep the political prescriptions separate from the scientific evidence that we need to have to give us the information needed to make wise decisions.

Comment by freelunch | February 4, 2008

“I never defended NRDC, so I have no idea why you think I should defend what they have had to say.”

*** Here are your exact words: “I have read your article. No scientists that I am aware of ignore the role that natural processes play in the change in climate over time.”

You obviously have not read my article. The NRDC is the political arm of the scientific community that believes global warming is man-made, and uses this to get their research funding. I spent a lot of time on that subject, explaining why I believe that there is a hidden agenda at work in these absolutist pronouncements on man-made global warming to the veritable exclusion of other factors.

You won’t accept what I have shown about the hidden agendas of those pushing man-made global warming because you don’t want to mix a discussion of politics and science, even though that is precisely what is driving this issue.

You believe man-made global warming is real and we must act now. Your only focus is how best to act, even though man-made global warming is just a “consensus” — and a changing one at that! It’s now mutated from an ice age, to global warming, to the ubiquitous (and therefore meaningless) “global climate change”. Since when was the climate ever static?

“Yes, you did [ask for my credentials], but as you know, science doesn’t care about credentials. Worrying about credentials is just an attempt to force an argument from authority.”

*** If you’re going to challenge my credentials on putting forth the case that man-made global warming is not settled science, and is used to promote a certain political agenda, then it’s only fair to ask you to provide yours in challenging me on this basis of a lack of scholarship.

You are engaging in a dishonest debate where I must now prove something (i.e. that man has not caused global warming) that you feel no need to prove yourself (i.e. that man HAS caused global warming). I’ve stated the hypothesis, and provided evidence to support it, that questions whether man-made global warming (a) exists, (b) has resulted in specific degree of climate change independent of other natural forces, and (c) can these so-called changes can be fixed or altered by man-made actions. You, on the other hand, state that we should “spend money preparing for the anticipated climate change by protecting areas that are most at risk and making other changes that allow us to adjust to the change,” without proving that any climate change exists at all.

You’ve taken an essay I’ve written about the politics of global warming that shows how elements of the scientific community have collaborated with politicians and activists groups to promote man-made global warming as a settled fact — enough for you to consider preparing for “the anticipated climate change”. You challenge my conclusions by asking me to provide scientific data that man isn’t the cause for any global warming. You claim that my policy analysis is not supportable because I haven’t quoted any scientists or scientific journals, yet you ignore that the footnotes contain references to scientific studies. And when I show you a list of prominent scientists doubting man-made global warming, you ignore it and say there is “no science” to back up my claim. And when I challenge you to live up to your own standards to validate that global warming exists, can be precisely measured (i.e. a half degree increase since 1880) and that man is to blame for this, you refuse to accept the same conditions that you now want to impose on me.

I don’t have time for silly, one-sided games.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008

I don’t have time for silly, one-sided games.

Sure you do. You have presented claims that you tell us are part of a hidden scientific agenda, yet when I ask you to provide me with science journal articles that support your claim, you are silent. I cannot trust any of your claims about what scientists do, because you never back them up with the appropriate evidence. I ask for science, you attack the NRDC, which is not and never has been a scientific organization.

Comment by freelunch | February 4, 2008

Freelunch: I said I don’t have time for silly, one-sided games.

Go prepare for the coming man-made global warming crisis you “know” is real, but feel no need to prove. And trust that every scientific issue is entirely devoid of any hidden agendas. Meanwhile, I’m going to go do some heavy breathing and see how much Co2 I can put into the atmosphere to raise the oceans about 60 feet so I can turn my home into lakefront property.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008

Dr. Jackson,

It's nice to see that you know that there isn't any anthropogenic effect to the climate, even though you have never offered any references to any scientific papers. Thank you.

Comment by freelunch | February 4, 2008

Freelunch: instead of ignoring what I wrote and writing back, ignore what I wrote and speak out loud. I'm trying to get all the Co2 into the air I can to increase my property values. Algore said it was true, so it must be true. The scientists I cited in comment 68, with references to their studies in comment 74, apparently don't count. So I must now concede that man made global warming is officially "real", and the sun and other natural forces have no independent measurable impact on climate change, which itself is not a natural state but one wholly man-induced. Elect Hillary and pay higher taxes to fix the problem. There's certainly no hidden agenda's here!

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008

Dr. Jackson - I don't see owlafaye and Campbell as "entirely different" in kind, just different in degree. Both display a total lack of respect for the other side, and make a long string of assertions without the slightest attempt to back them up. (Oh, and as to degree… do you think it'd be hard for me to find creationist examples at owlafaye's level? Just say the word.)

As to the 'hidden agendas' bit - I suppose I was a bit imprecise. Those who decry science's 'hidden agendas' generally limit the criticism to the areas of science that are goring their own oxes. "Oh, sure, most science is cool, but those jerks over there who are saying something I don't like, they're all biased." The people who don't like evolution generally don't have a problem with, say, climatology, and the people who have economic issues with global warming usually don't mind evolution. A few people totalize it, and toss out most of science, but generally they are the ones who are questioning something really fundamental and settled. They realize how tied-together much of science is. Like the young-Earth types, who have to reject not only evolution but biology, geology, chemistry, and physics.

That's not to say that science can't be ideologically-driven or that widely-held and self-serving errors can't last way longer than they should in science. (Consider the accepted wisdom that letting women attend college would cause their ovaries to atrophy.) But it's worth noting that, so far as I can see, every single accusation of 'ideologically-driven science' is made by someone with their own ideological drive. That's why I like to focus on the actual data and science - a decision's actually possible there. If the data doesn't work, then it should be possible to show that. If another idea works better, then it should be possible to show that.

Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 5, 2008

“do you think it’d be hard for me to find creationist examples at owlafaye’s level? Just say the word.”

*** I agree that there are owlafaye’s on both sides. All I can say is with respect to this exchange is, there’s only been one owlafaye.

“But it’s worth noting that, so far as I can see, every single accusation of ‘ideologically-driven science’ is made by someone with their own ideological drive.”

*** Again, we’re having a bit of a parallel conversation. If there were no agendas/assumptions/biases in science, then there would be no objection to allowing any hypothesis to be put forward and tested. If the data is there to support it, it’s deemed valid.

But not every hypothesis is allowed. The funding agencies that control money for scientific research approve only certain types of research. The mainstream journals only accept and publish certain types of studies. And then there’s the personal biases that scientists themselves hold that Thomas Kuhn documented.

All science, like all human activity, takes place within a framework. There is no such thing as pure data, since data is always subject to interpretation. Even what “works better” is a matter of interpretation, as the climate model examples I cited above show.

So yes, “every single accusation of ‘ideologically-driven science’ is made by someone with their own ideological drive,” if by this you mean that everyone has a world view and set of assumptions that form the foundations of their thoughts. With regard to human evolution, the rift I see between a “science” and “religious” starting point is the debate whether science, and only science, can explain everything in the universe.

I don’t see any hidden agendas in an approach that says “science and religion deal with related, but separate issues.” [Seems like there’s a good article on this in the IC archives]. But I do see hidden agendas where someone says that only science can provide answers to life’s questions, and further, believing that God exists disqualifies someone from providing any answers that conflict with what man is capable of observing directly.
You haven’t taken this position, so none of these charges are directed against you. I may quibble with where you draw a line between science and faith, but I appreciate the fact that while you personally don’t believe in God, you aren’t bigoted against those who do.

Instead, you are simply doing what I advised previously; asking that purely scientific questions be analyzed scientifically. The problem is, what you maintain is a purely scientific question, I and others believe science can’t fully answer; or at best, science can provide part of the answers (the “how”), but not the “why”.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 5, 2008

Phil, you’re correct that science is just another political special interest with an agenda and a junkie’s burning need for constant taxpayer funding. But, I think our unique ability to develop illusions goes deeper than politics and is fundamental to our basic psychology – many people cling to illusions about politics, others to illusions about female beauty and others to illusions about evolution for example. To some, the explanation for historic biological change and diversity of life is intellectually satisfied by “insufficient data to formulate a conclusion” – for others, “evolution is a fact” is the only acceptable answer. The problem is how do we tell if “insufficient data etcetera” or “the fact of evolution” is the correct explanation?

For example, suppose someone asked you to describe what specific factors of natural selection acting upon which specific genetic mutations at what specific times describes the evolution of humans. To name just one specific among the many claimed human evolutionary changes, if there are 193 species of simians, 192 covered entirely with hair and 1 relatively hairless, what natural selection factors caused this hair-loss change, what genes mutated in what specific order affecting what specific proteins and embryological development processes at what time in the evolutionary sequence? Evolutionary biologists would respond: “Are you crazy, no one knows that”. And then, of course, followed by the face saving response: “We don’t know those things now, but we probably will in the future.” Would you characterize this response to a basically simple question about a widely-held belief as a cas