Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Like my essay on the LDS conception of God, this is only a first draft. It is written with the intention of posting it on a discussion board for my students, but I thought I’d give it a test run here. You will find plenty of places where I ought to offer citations. I will before I offer it to my students.
- Scott

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended for us to forego their use.
- Galileo

Evolution Creation Debate
It is common for students starting college or university to believe in creationism. It is considerably less likely that those same students will believe in creationism upon graduation. Invariably, every semester brings in a new batch of students who reject evolution, sometimes quite vociferously. The purpose of this short essay is to point out some of the reasons that it is more reasonable to believe in evolution than creationism.
First, some clarifications.
What does the term “creationism” mean? There are certainly variations depending upon which brand of religion is telling you what to believe, but some of the more common themes include:
- the world, and all living things, were created at the same time
- about 6000 years ago
- by an intelligent force;
- geography and biogeography can be explained by recourse to a worldwide flood
- about 5000 years ago.
What does the term “evolution” mean? This one is actually quite simple:
- species can and do change over time.
What about Darwinism? What does that mean?
- there can be variations in characteristics from generation from generation
- (this is now understood in terms of genetics, but genetics is not part of Darwinism, per se)
- there can be variations in environments.
- some variations in characteristics are better suited to some environments
- organisms with characteristics that are better suited to their environments are more successful at reproduction
- so are more likely to pass on their characteristics than those less well suited.
One more term—what is a theory?
- an attempt to explain a phenomena based on
- observable facts
- accepted principles, and
- assumptions that don’t contradict the observable facts and accepted principles;
- it is also falsifiable. This is ESSENTIAL to understanding what a scientific theory is. When a scientist posits a theory, it becomes publicly testable. It could, of necessity and by definition, potentially be wrong.
- Falsifiability allows science to be self correcting. A theory makes predictions. If those predictions turn out to be incorrect, scientists use that information to revise the theory.
- Hence, scientists use the word “truth” selectively. One of my professors said to me that “as a scientists, you don’t hope to be right; you hope to be wrong for interesting reasons.”
- So science is an attempt to access the truth, all the while recognizing that you are only approximating the truth.
There is another sense in which we commonly use the word “theory.” We sometimes use it to mean something that is not substantiated, something not supported, like an opinion, a myth, or even a guess (as in “Well, that’s just your theory.”).

Evolution is Only a Theory
So with that in mind, here is an important conceptual clarification. Sometimes people will say “Evolution is just a theory.” Is this an accurate statement? In a sense it is probably factually correct, but it is at the same time misleading. True, some scientists think of evolution as a theory, but they think of it in the first sense mentioned above, in the self correcting approximation to the truth sense, not in the my guess is as valid as anybody else’s guess sense. However, when somebody makes the statement “evolution is just a theory,” you can bet your last dollar that they are implying the second sense of the word, banking on the fact the common public understanding of the word is the second, not the first.
When you hear the phrase “evolution is just a theory,” which connotation of “theory” do you hear? The phrase is intended to lead people into thinking that evolution is just a guess—that there are multiple frameworks that could explain the observed phenomena equally well, and that asserting evolution over the others is essentially random. It is a sneaky but effective rhetorical tactic—make the statement knowing that most folks will interpret in one sense, but if anybody challenges you, you have option to turn around and say that the statement is factually correct.
Contained in the statement “evolution is just a theory” is another ambiguity. If a scientist assents to the statement, he/she most likely does not mean to agree with the statement that evolution, per se, is hypothetical. Virtually every scientist working in a field related to evolution accepts the occurrence of evolution as an established fact. If a scientist does agree that “evolution is just a theory” he or she is most agreeing that Darwinism is a theory. Darwinian evolution is the theory postulated to explain evolution. Evolution is considered an established fact that stands in need of explanation, Darwinism is the theoretical explanation of the mechanism behind the established fact. And though Darwinism is a theory, it is a theory in the scientific sense described above, not the opinion/guess sense. By analogy, Evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory. Nobody seriously doubts that gravity exists, but exactly how best to explain it is where theory enters the equation.
Don’t be swayed by the claim that evolution is “just” a theory.

“I don’t know the answer to the question” ≠ unanswered question ≠ unanswerable question.
A common mistake in student thinking is to argue against evolution by asking what they think is a question that has not been answered by evolutionary science, thereby exposing what think to be a fatal flaw in science.
Typically, the student mistake is to confuse a question that he/she does not know the answer to with a question that has not been answered. Included in this note is a discussion of a couple of these questions. Questions like “how do you account for the missing link” and “if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?” are questions that have an answer that fits in the big picture provided by evolutionary theory and are consistent with the evidence… i.e. they have been answered.
A second mistake in this approach is to suppose that an unanswered question poses an insurmountable obstacle to the scientific method. This is an example of a common error in thinking that applies either/or thinking to situations when there is room for a middle ground.
In this case the either/or is that either there is an answer to this question, or Darwinism is false/creationism is true. The problem is that there are number of potential other alternatives. It is possible, for example, that both Darwinism and creationism could be wrong. Biodiversity could be explained by a further, yet unarticulated theory.
This is probably not necessary as Darwinism does not claim to have all the answers. Our understanding of evolution has been contributed to by, for example, Mendel’s studies of heritability, genetics, linguistics, geology, archeology, and anthropology. The answer to the “insurmountable” question could come from any source and need not invalidate Darwinism.
Furthermore, this approach to critiquing evolution fails to recognize one of the essential elements of the scientific method. Science is not threatened by unanswered questions, rather, it thrives on them. Being an unending quest for the truth, science has to have means of discovering error, it has to be self correcting. Asking questions, making predictions, and testing those predictions are all essential to the progress of knowledge. If we stopped asking questions, knowledge would cease to expand.

What About The Missing Link
There is an implied metaphor in the question “what about the missing link?” The metaphor is that of a chain, and the implications are that (i) evolution is a linear process, and that (ii) there are clear definable links in the chain. Furthermore, just as a chain with gaps would hardly function as a chain, the implication is that the missing link in evolution makes the theory untenable.
The problem is that the metaphor is misleading. Better metaphors would avoid the clear definable links of the chain and focus on shades of grey, and instead of focusing on the linearity of the chain would focus on the fact there are multiple lines of development—a branching rather than a single line from point A to point B.
Here’s statement that sounds like support for creationists as opposed to scientists. The problem is not that there is a missing link, but that there are innumerable missing links. But surprisingly, this is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict.
Gould (1977, 2002) proposes the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Equilibrium means stability, and punctuated means interrupted or disrupted. In Gould’s theory, there are periods of rapid speciation during which there is rapid change and branching. These periods, however, are only the punctuation. For the most part, Gould argues, there are periods of tremendous stability during which there are few forces acting upon species that would force a change. Consequently, evolutionary theory predicts that even if we find lots of fossils, we should expect only a small ratio of these to be transitional fossils because the periods of punctuation are relatively small.
Missing links, being exactly what one would expect based on evolutionary theory, are hardly the smoking gun thought by lay persons.

Why are not other species of primates evolving into humans?
Another question raised by those opposed to evolution regards the claim by science that humans are a species of great apes. If humans evolved from primates, they reason, then why are other species changing into humans?
This stems from a number of misunderstandings regarding how evolution works.
The first is that evolution is not teleological. Teleology means moving toward a predetermined aim or goal. An acorn growing into an oak tree could be described teleologically because it’s final form—the oak tree—is already coded into the acorn; there is no waiting and wondering whether forces of nature will make the acorn grow into an antelope or a bacteria, it is already determined.
Those who are steeped in creationist thought tend to think teleologically. Just as the acorn is developing according a plan (“design”), so the world, as is, is the result of design. And because it is so, it is inevitable that things would turn out as they did.
Those who watch Star Trek are familiar with the question of why all intelligent alien species are so similar to humans. Almost all aliens typically are just shy of 6 feet tall, have two arms, two legs, one head, two eyes in the front of their heads, communicate through forcing air through some sort of vocal cord in the neck and through a mouth in the front of their heads. Well, this raises the question—why? Why do so many alien races look almost exactly like humans.
There was an episode of Star Trek (The Next Generation) where this question was addressed. My memory on this is fuzzy, but the explanation was something like this: when life began on Earth, it did so because the planet was “seeded” by a race of super aliens. Contained in the “seed” was a tendency toward characteristics that we would describe as human. Well, these same Super-Johnny-Appleseeds did the same thing all over the universe. Therefore, whenever intelligent life is discovered, the life-forms share relevant characteristics with humanity.
The Star Trek TNG example is a wonderful illustration of what we mean when we refer to teleology. Just like the seed and sapling have in them a disposition to grow into an oak tree, a teleological thinker would look at our ancestors and presume that they had, inherent in them, a predisposition to move toward humanness.
Prior to Copernicus, humans believed the world to be the center of the universe, and that the world was created for the benefit of humanity. We assumed that the human form was designed by God, the human form was the top of the biological hierarchy.
An analogous idea is found in the views of one of the founders of Sociology, Auguste Compte. Compte, like Europeans in general, thought that there was a natural hierarchy of sorts of societies, with cultures inevitably going through stages—an evolution leading toward a society like that of Western Europe.
It is not difficult to see why a creationist—someone who believes that humans are the result of a grand design by God, when confronted by the idea of evolution would read teleology into it. Evolution, if it happened, was the process that leads (inevitably) to humans. We are the natural result of the process.
But in the absence of the idea that there was an inevitable tendency towards humanity as the ultimate goal, the question of why there are other species of great apes becomes moot. If there is no predetermined process that turns non-human primates into humans, then there is no surprise that other primates are not gradually changing into humans.
Evolutionary theory does not include such an element of teleology. Any teleology in evolution is a misunderstanding on the part of the critic. Humans are considered to be the result of random changes that could have quite easily turned out different. Changes happen, not according to a predetermined pattern, but randomly, and those that fit a niche are more likely to pass on their genes than those less adapted.

Non-falsifiability in Creationism
Phillip Kitcher (1982) argues that Creationism claims an interesting fallback positions that make it non-falsifiable.
He quotes Whitcomb and Harris (1961) as saying that “[i]t is because the Bible itself teaches us these things that we are fully justified in appealing to the power of God, whether or not He used means amenable to our scientific understanding…”
If one takes such an assertion seriously, it implies that because claims are based on the Bible, we can accept them as being true regardless of what evidence actually says. This attitude is what puts the creationist in his interesting position. Whenever there is evidence that could fit into a creationist structure, it should be embraced as confirming evidence; whenever there is contradictory evidence, it doesn’t matter because our conclusions are true regardless. Disconfirming evidence, then, can be dismissed as if it were the exception.
Compare this to science. Science values disconfirming evidence. As described above, the possibility that you might be wrong is essential to the pursuit of knowledge. It allows science to be self correcting and always improving.
Without admitting the possibility that you might be wrong, there is no way to discover whether you are in fact wrong. If you can’t show that you are not wrong, could you ever hope to show that you are right?

Cost/Benefit Analysis
In deciding whether to accept evolution, it would be helpful to consider a cost benefit analysis.
1. If evolution did not occur…
One thing that new students often do not realize is that evolution is extremely well established. Essentially all of the sciences converge on the same conclusion. One could look at archeology, anthropology, geology, biogeography, psychology, physics, psychology, linguistics, paleontology, biochemistry, genetics, astronomy, etc, and they all arrive at the same conclusion—that evolution happened.
So one cost of rejecting evolution is that we have to throw out all of the sciences. If we reject evolution, we also have to reject the scientific method with it.
If we have to reject evolution, we have to reject the notion that we can use evidence and rationality to arrive at true conclusions.
Furthermore, while rejecting evolution, we are claiming
(i) all of the sciences are mistaken,
(ii) they converge on the same (mistaken) conclusion, and
(iii) they all use different methodologies.
We have to ask ourselves how it is even conceivable that researchers using different and flawed investigative methods could independently arrive at the same profoundly incorrect conclusion. Some possibilities…
(i) God created the world in such a way that it is obvious (though wrong) that evolution has occurred.
If you believe in God you believe that rationality is a gift from God. If you accept possibility (i), you accept that God planted all the evidence such that, when we use our God given gift of rationality, we arrive at a false belief.
(ii) The devil placed the fossil record there.
God, though omnipotent (there is nothing God cannot do), omniscient (there is nothing that God does not know) and benevolent (God has our best interests in mind) allowed the devil to plant evidence such that, when we use our God given gift of rationality, we arrive at a false belief.
(iii) Or perhaps there is a vast conspiracy of all scientists and social scientists
While (iii) is a theoretical possibility, it is quite untenable. How does a scientist make a name for himself or herself? By providing new theories and new explanations, by showing where science has been wrong in the past. Being a scientist and being religious are not mutually exclusive, many scientists are religious. If perhaps one or two of those religious scientists were to break the silence regarding the big conspiracy, they would be the most famous scientists in the world. If we accept option (iii) we have to believe that all those who enter into the pursuit of truth that is science become part of this conspiracy of silence to the extent that they are capable of resisting the temptation of becoming the most famous scientist in the world by doing the very thing that motivated them into the sciences in the first place—exposing the truth!
2. If evolution did occur
The biggest cost here is that creationists will have to give up a literal reading of Genesis (or the Qur’an, or PofGP).
Please note that I did not contend that religious persons would need to give up his or her belief in God or in the Bible. It is quite conceivable that one could retain religious conviction whilst not accepting a literal reading of Genesis. This must be the case when you consider the numbers of scientists who maintain religious belief.
One reason that people are motivated to maintain belief in the literal reading of Genesis is that one of the major events of Genesis is the Fall of Adam and Eve and the subsequent separation of Man from God. When Christians talk about being saved, to what are they referring? It is commonly understood that being saved refers to being saved from the effects of Fall as described in Genesis.
Clearly there must be alternative interpretations of the opening chapters of the Bible, else how could so many scientists be Bible believers, how could the Pope accept evolution, or how could they teach evolution at BYU (yes they do).
There are a number of alternative readings of Genesis.
If you believe that God inspired the Bible, then in Genesis God is trying to tell you something. What that something might be I don’t want to venture too far as religion is such a personal thing, but it is probably reasonable to read the opening chapters of Genesis as a message concerning the human condition. If it is a revelation from God, consider the context in which it was revealed. Had God inspired the writers of Genesis to write in terms of molecular biology, heritability, and evolutionary psychology, the message would not have been understood. If Genesis is an inspired book, God would have had the authors write in terms of the metaphysics of the day so that it could be understood by the people of the day.
There is no indication in the text of Genesis that the metaphysics is the message.
So the cost-benefit analysis.
Option 1: reject evolution
cost:
- with it goes science, the scientific method, knowledge derived from science
- and our belief that we can gain knowledge through evidence and application of our God given faculty of reason (so why are you even in school?)
benefit:
- maintain a literal understanding of Genesis, even though a literal reading is not necessary for belief in religion in general nor Genesis specifically.
Option 2: reject creationism
cost
- with it goes a literal reading of Genesis
- there is no cost to belief in God, nor in belief in the Bible.
benefit”
- we have not rejected the possibility of obtaining knowledge through evidence and reason.
Finally, it is instructive to consider who are the people who are making the claims for evolution and creationism, and consider who would be the most likely to make an error due to preconceived notions or biases. In what follows in the next few paragraphs, I am admittedly speaking in sweeping generalities.
Speaking for evolution and Darwinism are the scientists. An important element of scientific validity is the quest to eliminate biases. One of the main purposes of peer review of academic papers is to ensure that the research methods employed are adequate to eliminate (or at least reduce) the impact that the expectations, preferences, or motivations of the researchers might have on the outcome of the research. You’ve heard folks say that “you can prove anything/!” Well, no, not really. That’s only accurate in poorly designed research. What you want to turn out o be true should have no bearing on the results you obtain from your research. In fact, to allow one’s expectations or biases too much sway is to put roadblocks in the way of the acquisition of objective truth.
Creationists, on the other hand, are motivated to believe in creationism, not because of the evidence, but because of religious considerations. Believing in creationism is a matter of faith.
Faith is believing a proposition to be true in the absence of an adequate justification (reason, evidence) for believing that proposition. Faith requires an act of will, i.e. “I choose to believe X (that God exists, that there is life after death), even though X cannot be justified by reason and/or evidence.”
Furthermore, faith is widely held to be a virtue. i.e. it is virtuous to believe certain proposition in the absence of or contrary to evidence or reason. This leads to an interesting condition in some true believers. The lack of scientific support for creationism is not seen to be problematic. If “taking a leap” of faith is virtuous, then surely, the greater the leap, the more virtuous. The greater the act of will required to believe a proposition, the more unshakeable the belief.
Consequently, the creationist openly admits bias, openly admits that he will believe creationism regardless of what any evidence says
So if we compare the two proponents. Scientists are always looking for their errors, trying to self correct. Creationists believing there is no possibility of error so not asking the questions that an lead to self correction…
Who is most likely to be biased?
(i) somebody who examines the evidence then draws conclusions?
(ii) somebody who draws conclusions, then examines the evidence? Then ignores evidence contrary to their biases?
Or phrased another way–In Empirical matters (like evolution) which is going to be the better research method for discovering truth. Examining the facts and reasoning from the evidence, or believing whatever you would prefer to be true…
Finally I want to very briefly ask, why would a non-creationist ever even listen to an “argument” for creationism? If I wish to convince you that a proposition is true, I could look at the evidence for the truthfulness of that proposition, and/or I could use reason and logic. But what happens when the only way to believe that proposition is to ignore evidence and reason? What is left to use as the premisses in your attempt to convince. In order to defend creationism, one must ignore the evidence, the logic of the scientific method, and reason. What is left to use in an argument for creationism?

Gould, S. J. (1977) “Evolution’s erratic pace.” Natural History 86 (May): 12-16.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press.
Kitcher, P. (1982). Against Creationism. Abusing Science, pp.124-164. Cambridge; MIT Press.