Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[Perfection]

Here's a fun one:
http://galaxyzoo.org/

 

[MayNilad Man]

Don't forget Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon, Georges Lamaitre, and some French Jesuit-Astronomer.

 

[Verbose]

Einstein, Weierstrass, Ramanujan and Faraday are four examples of "outsiders" who rose to the very top of their fields in mathematics and physics simply on the quality of their work.

Don't forget Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon, Georges Lamaitre, and some French Jesuit-Astronomer.

Roger Bacon (1214-1294), or you meant Francis Bacon (1561-1626)?
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Karl Weierstrass (1815-1897)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887-1920)
Georges Lamaitre (1894-1966)

A bit of a bunch of "Oldies, but goldies" don't you guys think?

With the exception of Lemaitre, these all made their contributions about a century, or more, ago. The strong suggestion I'm making is that the way science has become organised today increasingly disallows clever amateurs from making that kind of break-through discoveries. The more professional, more institutionalised, more large scale, but simultaneously more compartementalised, and the more technology dependant experimental science (in particular) has become, the higher the threshold for entry, and the more formal the way into it. I'm not going to deny it it still possible for someone to bolt in unexectedly way out of left field, but it has become increasingly rare and difficult.

So it would have been a tad more convincing list to demonstrate how science is universal, inclusive and open for all talent (which I imagine is roughly what we are somewhat in disagreement about), if it had been a bit more modern.

Also most of them did receive some scientific training (if it was available at all at the time), and was in contact with ace-scientists. Carl Nägeli looked at Mendel's results in the 1860's, saw them as more of the same of hybridity studies, of which there were a lot at the time, and suggested Mendel instead should tackle other sets of problems, which were unfortunately beyond his (or anyone else's) capacity at the time. The rediscovery of Mendel occurred when science had moved to a situation where they could be used. My point isn't that Mendel didn't contribute, but that he wasn't really out of the loop of science.

Actually I'll concede that Mendel is a very good example of an outsider making the crucial discovery. But it occurs in the 19th c., before science had become both large-scale, technology-dependant, and subdivided into a myriad specialities to handle its current tasks. It also occurred in the discipline of botany, which has always been and still is more reliant on amateur input than just about every other scientific activity. (Still is.) It stems from being very close to the fairly down-to-earth, very old and highly sophisticated practices of agricultural breeders of plants and animals. I.e. it's one area where sophisticated knowledge is produced outside science, which still doesn't necessarily accord its specialists "scientist" status.

Several of them are also primarily mathematicians (Weierstrass, Ramanujan, in many ways Einstein). Math is a bit of a special case. It has obvious and profound scientific applications, but it remains unclear to this day if it is to be regarded as a science like the rest. For one, pure mathematics involves no experimentation, as in no manipulation of matter and equipment. If you do physics like Einstien did, you also tend to wait for someone else to come up with some form of experimental confirmation. You don't do it yourself. Most modern science has become increasingly technology dependant in the last half century or so. Mathematics is an exception.

The case of the Soviet Union is kind of instructive here. The Soviets may have been great at weapons systems and highly inventive in prestige projects like space-flight, but they missed out on things like computers, and in fact they also found themselves struggling with keeping up with the heavy investment in machinery for basic scientitic research beginning in the 1970's or so. What happened in the Soviet Union was that a lot of clever people with an interest in science were channeled towards pure mathemtics rather than experimental science, since the USSR could train scientists, but not afford them the equipment needed for state-of-the-art research, at least not to the extent the West could. Pure mathematics however normally requires no more of you than to equip a clever guy with pen and paper.

Mathematics is also impervious to the radical breaks in scientific theory and method which have occurred in the last half-millenium. It never had to deal with the rise of empiricist philosophy or experimentalism. Those have nothing to do with mathematics. It really is a special case. Math is in in many ways a-historical, while science is a very historical phenomenon. These days if anyone wants to make an impact on science by detouring the modern academic system, math is the way to go, if you have the inclination.

Of the list above, the people up to and including Faraday were active in a time when scientists, in any modern sense didn't yet exist. From that pov everyone making a conribution to science back then was an amateur. People like Tycho, Kepler and Galileo were all courtiers as a basic fact of life and work. Descartes died as one. Boyle wasn't, but since he was the son of the Duke of Cornwall (iirc), he could afford science. Hooke otoh was dependant on Boyle, and the Royal Society. Newton does stand out for having a professorial chair in mathematics which didn't require him to be an ordained minister in the CoE, and that makes him unique in his time. Otoh the mathematician and philosopher Newton expended more effort on theology and alchemy than he ever did on science througout his career.

Bringing it up to Faraday, he was working in an era of British science when this was still a pursuit of "gentleman amateurs". But I'll concede that for an example of an outsider, he's sterling!

Of course, he wasn't actually an outsider to professional science in any modern sense, as that didn't even exist in the UK in Faraday's time. Faraday was no gentleman, when science was one of the particular pursuits gentlemen could engage in. And in fact he never made it in among "a better sort of people", but remained socially marginal to them. Based on the interesting work he was doing he was accommodated though, but even that required active patronage. Faraday didn't become a professional scientist by being accepted among the professionals, as these didn't yet exist. In a sense he became a professional because he managed to make a living exclusively from his scientific activities. But in this he didn't become a model, which really only highlights the lifelong exceptionality of the situation. He was a unique one-off rather than part of a pattern.

At this point in time science wasn't even being taught at the British universities. Besides, Faraday was a Quaker, so he would never have been accepted there anyway. This was at a time when the first professional, institution-trained, institution-based, full-time, non-client, making-a-living-from-science scientists started appearing in Germany and France. But also there the happening places weren't the universities yet, but rather things museums, academies and societies.

Lemaitre is modern. I assume he was suggested for being a Catholic priest. In fact he had double careers. He was educated at Cambridge, UK, Harvard and MIT, before receiving his professorship. I'd say he was about as much an insider to science as anyone is likely to be. He's just a little special in not exclusively pursuing science, which is think is telling among modern scientists. Had Newton tried to pull the stuff he did in his time today, he's collegues would think he was off his rocker. That's what you get from specialisation as part of professionalisation.

As for Jesuit men of science, there are too many to quickly hunt down a specific French astronomer among them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alumni_of_Jesuit_educational_institutions#A:crazyeye:

The Jesuits are themselves interesting to the history of science precisely because they formed an educated elite of their own, engaged in research in early modern history (16th-18th c.), parallell to the institutions which otherwise make up the normal prehistory of modern science (Royal Society etc.).

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Science costs indeed alot of €€ to conduct. Chemistry, physics and related science are instrumentation and cost heavy.

One number I can throw in: a modern liquid chromatograph with mass spectrometer costs 2 million € - which is a standard instrument in biochemical, phaarmaceutical and environmental research.

Anyways, I would like to continue the discussion on wrong communication. Imo, the media has a lot of blame to take for the current mistrust. Research is often presented oversimplified and sometimes completely misinterpreted - which of course leaves the reader confused when another articles appears inconsitent with the first one. The opinion of amateurs is also presented unreflected and as fact just to give an impression of controversy which is of course good for the media. And the last issue is that they are bought to publish this esotheric BS - without questioning, and with the same validity as actual research.

 

[MayNilad Man]

Er. Actually, I meant those names to be examples of clergy who have made significant contributions to science, thus killing somewhat the belief that religion and science are anathema.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Seriously, I don't get it? One might think evolution is the correct theory of the origin of species, but why would one be upset, and at times offended, when someone says it's wrong?

It makes sense that religious people get personal about evolution's claims, because it discredits God as the creator. But why would evolutionists get upset about creationists, ID followers and the like? Why would they care?

It's not upsetting, it's beneficial to the ToE that it gets challenged. The Theory has such a large movement to defend against, that it credits the Theory when it survives all counterarguments.

So I care and I am gratefull. If it didn't create such a controversy we would have known a lot less about evolution as we do now.

edit: By the way, I don't believe that the ToE discredits a Deity or a Creator. It does discredit ID though. Again and again and again. It's a little upsetting that ID gets as much airtime as it does, since it tends to repeat it's discredited arguments again and again and again.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, saying that religion and science do or don't get along, is to imply that "religion" is a meaningful label. The problem being that there is so much diversity of belief among the religious that what is true of one religion or individual is often not true of another. Clearly, some religious views are not amenable to scientific inquiry.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, it's not good for you. Ask any economist: the cost to you of other people being educated and you having to compete with them is far outweighed by the benefit to you of you being more productive when surrounded by more educated people (both directly in the workplace and indirectly in the voting booth).

Having a blasé attitude toward others' stupidity isn't very wise IMO (of course, I'm not really talking about evolution specifically anymore).

Thanks for typing this!

Both you and I get benefit from any additional education that takes place nearly anywhere. It's a powerful paradigm. This is why I shouldn't mind paying taxes for educational purposes. This is also why I try to pass on free learning resources (and encouragement) whenever possible. Plus, pursuing my own education has an altruistic element!

 

[Stapel]

Homie, I've been following this thread the past few days, and think I can explain. Not by actually getting into another creo-evo-thread, but by making an analogy.

BTW, I do think creation and evolution have absolutely nothing to find in one discussion. If there would be 100% proof that our world is the result of God/ID/creation, that still does not say a thing about evolotion. And if there is 100% proof there are no god whatsoever, that still doesn't say a thing about evolution.
And if evolution is 100% oven there might still be a God at the kick-off of the evolution process.

Seriously, I don't get it? One might think evolution is the correct theory of the origin of species, but why would one be upset, and at times offended, when someone says it's wrong?

It makes sense that religious people get personal about evolution's claims, because it discredits God as the creator. But why would evolutionists get upset about creationists, ID followers and the like? Why would they care?

The analogy:
Imagine your sister (it's an analogy, I really would not know if you have any sisters at all) is raped. A thorough forensic, scientifical based, investigation clearly points towards a certain suspect. Think of DNA.

However, in the criminal court, lawyers comes up with a totally non-scientific based defense: They convince the jury that a man with such a nice-looking face can never be a rapist, no matter what forensic eveidence tells. The jury buys it and the defendant goes free. You would go mad!

Now, I do understand that a criminal case and ToE are not so easily compared, but the idea behind it is the same.

Evolution scientists start researching from a unbiased point of view. Trust me, they do not seek to debunk religion. After spending hours, days, weeks, months and years, they have found evidence of species having lived 500.000 years ago that stand somewhat in between, in development, modern man and a species that has lived 1.000.000 years ago.
These results are found, based on scientific studies.

Imagine how a scientist feels when somebody whipes the whole theory away, not based on scientific counter-evidence, but based on a religious document? I'd imagine he'll feel pretty bad!

 

[Homie]

The thread topic does not ask why a scientist would be prone to defend evolution with vigor, it asks why regular joes who barely know what they are defgending, still are defending it, and with great passion.

I hardly think your analogy is apt. And furthermore, alot of the replies on this thread have been of this type:"Because evolution rocks, and creationism sucks! Yeah, woot woot, science is the bomb!!!" That's pretty much been it, but veiled of course, so as to seem all objective, smart and balanced, while in reality its nothing more than cheering for ones team.

Evolution scientists start researching from a unbiased point of view

Give me a break. What makes these scientists more than human? They're not! The piltdown-man isn't the only example of reputable scientists hoaxing to prove evolution. Not that that's their real motive, their real motive is gaining respect and recognition for making great finds, and their human nature leads them to cheat to achieve it.
I'm not saying scientists are less trustable than regular folk, but they aren't more trustable either. It annoys me that people seem to elevate "Science" to the point of worship, when really it is nothing else than people trying to figure out nature.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The purpose of the Piltdown hoax wasn't to prove evolution at all, though.

 

[frob2900]

The thread topic does not ask why a scientist would be prone to defend evolution with vigor, it asks why regular joes who barely know what they are defgending, still are defending it, and with great passion.

Because they realize that the world is a much better place with modern science, and things that science has brought us do actually work

I hardly think your analogy is apt. And furthermore, alot of the replies on this thread have been of this type:"Because evolution rocks, and creationism sucks! Yeah, woot woot, science is the bomb!!!" That's pretty much been it, but veiled of course, so as to seem all objective, smart and balanced

But obviously scientific arguments really are "the bomb" when compared to the stuff that creationists come up with. Have you looked at the literature?

Give me a break. What makes these scientists more than human? They're not! The piltdown-man isn't the only example of reputable scientists hoaxing to prove evolution. Not that that's their real motive, their real motive is gaining respect and recognition for making great finds

lol@bringing up piltdown man If you are going to claim that evolutionists are forced to use hoaxes, then for pete's sake find something relevant to contemporary debate.

 

[warpus]

Scientist try to be as unbiased as they can, because otherwise they are more likely to end up with false conclusions.

You are right that scientist are often times motivated by the need for respect, recognition for a great achievement, immortality (of a sort). They are as human as me and you. But also pretend that the theory evolution is nothing but bunk. Somebody out there would want to discredit it then - his name would be remembered for centuries. If TOE is bunk, why hasn't this happened yet?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And furthermore, alot of the replies on this thread have been of this type:"Because evolution rocks, and creationism sucks! Yeah, woot woot, science is the bomb!!!" That's pretty much been it, but veiled of course, so as to seem all objective, smart and balanced, while in reality its nothing more than cheering for ones team.

Doesn't this make replying to the OP useless? After all, it doesn't matter what the reply is if you view it in that perspective.

And there I was, thinking you were asking an honest question.

edit: There have been scientific finds which have been proven wrong by other scientists (cold fusion for instance). Show me one instance of one ID-er proving another ID-er wrong. Or one creationist proving another wrong.

 

[Homie]

Furthermore, annoying comments from clueless people in this debate:

Evolution is proven!
- For one, I thought that one could not prove something in science, only disprove. I believe I learned that in science class. But I see what point people are making here, they are being relaxed in their use of terms. That's OK, what they really mean is that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt. But how can that be? Again, some knowledge from science class helps me out here: I believe in science nothing can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt unless it can be tested and observed repeatedly in a controlled environment (a laboratory). Has evolution been tested in a laboratory? I think not. Because it spans such a long time, it cannot be tested in a laboratory.
Don't bring me the example of the banana flies, it proves nothing but natural selection, which is an integral part of evolution, but not the whole picture.

 

[Homie]

Doesn't this make replying to the OP useless? After all, it doesn't matter what the reply is if you view it in that perspective.

Why?

And I was asking an honest question.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why?

And I was asking an honest question.

Because when someone answers in an objective, smart and balanced way, you asume they are merely cheering for ones team. "In reality"

So anything anyone sais will be explained by you as: "cheering for one's team"

So what's the point in replying?

 

[Homie]

Scientist try to be as unbiased as they can, because otherwise they are more likely to end up with false conclusions.

You are right that scientist are often times motivated by the need for respect, recognition for a great achievement, immortality (of a sort). They are as human as me and you. But also pretend that the theory evolution is nothing but bunk. Somebody out there would want to discredit it then - his name would be remembered for centuries. If TOE is bunk, why hasn't this happened yet?

There's not nearly as much credit given to debunking an idea as there is to coming up with one. I bet you can name plenty of famous scientists off the top of your head you came up with new ideas and finds. But can you name one (not using google or whatever) that is famous FOR debunking an idea?
Secondly, evolution cannot be disproven for the same reason it cannot be proven: It happens over such a large time-span that it cannot be observed.

 

[frob2900]

Evolution is proven!
- For one, I thought that one could not prove something in science, only disprove. I believe I learned that in science class. But I see what point people are making here, they are being relaxed in their use of terms. That's OK, what they really mean is that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt. But how can that be? Again, some knowledge from science class helps me out here: I believe in science nothing can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt unless it can be tested and observed repeatedly in a controlled environment (a laboratory).

Well, if I tell you that you spent yesterday on a magic castle on the darkside of the moon, how would you react?

You can't "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that you weren't, but it's rather likely that you weren't. Still, even though you can't prove your point, or disprove mine (to the degree you seem to require) that doesn't make my absurd theory relevant in any way whatsoever.

The magic castle theory is to your theory about what you did yesterday, what creationism is to evolution.

So how would you react if there were a bunch of people constantly saying "Hey, Homie, how was it in the magic castle?"?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You know what happens to your reputation when your published findings are shown to be bull? Maybe you can ask the guy who thought he had found proof for homeopathy (search for Benveniste) It ruined his carreer when he was shown wrong.

Scientists are very unforgiving to their own kind.