DescentBB

Link

"'Belief in evolution' is a valid measure of a person's science literacy," true or false? The data says false.

I believe this aids in proving my point about evolutionary origins quite nicely.

I don't see how it proves any point, other than the idea that "belief" in a given concept and actual knowledge of that concept aren't necessarily correlated. It's a troubling result, but not exactly surprising. The data aren't making any statements about the veracity of evolutionary theory.

snoopy wrote:...my point about evolutionary origins...

Which is what, exactly?

(If this is a spin-off from another thread, might want to reiterate your point for readers.)

My previous point has been that evolutionary origins are a philosophical topic with little relevance to modern day science. People's insistence in linking belief in evolutionary origins with people's ability to know and do modern day science is no different than the way that biblical beliefs and "science" used to be linked back in the olden days.

(Note: I've also said that evolutionary origins serve as a mighty fine motivational inspiration for lots of real modern day science... but it's also proving to be an excuse for shouting down real modern day science too - it's a motivational factor to be sure, but it isn't science in and of itself and it's a fallacy to present it that way.)

We're talking about filling out a 10 question true-or-false questionnaire, not practicing science in any meaningful sense. If you think that the universe was created exactly as it was one second ago, then OK, that seems absurd to me, and it probably won't affect your ability to fill out a short questionnaire either, and there's nothing that I can even scientifically say to dispute you. But, using your model, you'll have more trouble conceptualizing the universe compared to someone using a much more intuitive model.

I hear "the study doesn't fit my framework, so I'm going to choose to ignore it."

No, I believe what Jeff is saying is something more along the lines of, "The study's definition of 'science literacy' as the ability to fill out a small questionnaire is not a good representation. On the other hand, the use of other models (e.g. a just-now-created universe) does impact the ability to do science."

A simple example. Look at the seeds and fruits of plants. I mean, their organization and distribution methods. Do you seriously think that the trees and plants can create it in the process of evolution? I still believe that if someone does not do something, then it can not occur by itself.

Foil wrote:No, I believe what Jeff is saying is something more along the lines of, "The study's definition of 'science literacy' as the ability to fill out a small questionnaire is not a good representation. On the other hand, the use of other models (e.g. a just-now-created universe) does impact the ability to do science."

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but…I'm not sure how it applies.

It doesn’t change the fact that people are choosing to believe in science over religion, based on faith…rather than actual knowledge of how that particular science works.

“I don’t know the difference between a protein and an enzyme, but I believe in evolution…” >shrug<

I don’t have a particular problem with that, but it is what it is, and people can be mislead because of this.

sigma wrote:A simple example. Look at the seeds and fruits of plants. I mean, their organization and distribution methods. Do you seriously think that the trees and plants can create it in the process of evolution? I still believe that if someone does not do something, then it can not occur by itself.

Yes...

Because I understand how evolution works.

Nothing occurs by itself.

I think that you and sigma are using two different definitions for evolution, Spidey.

But we're not talking about definitions for evolution here. we're talking about wether or not the belief in evolution is a valid measuring stick for scientific literacy.

To which I agree -- it's not.


-------

it's going to turn into another one of THOSE threads, isn't it...

Foil wrote:No, I believe what Jeff is saying is something more along the lines of, "The study's definition of 'science literacy' as the ability to fill out a small questionnaire is not a good representation. On the other hand, the use of other models (e.g. a just-now-created universe) does impact the ability to do science."

But... why do you feel that other models do affect our ability to do science? Let's take the just-now-created universe: If it's created just now with the appearance of age... how does that affect the way that we do our science? I can see it being used as a cop-out, but then evolution is used as a cop-out, so at that point both are just excuses to be lazy. I can see how either the just now universe or the evolution models might motivate us to do science - a-la "I'm going to use science to prove that I'm the one that's right not those other guys." My argument is that science is really about developing theories, testing them, and learning from them - and that those mechanics can be equally applied and be equally useful regardless of the theories that you're trying to develop, test, and use. So, I'm rejecting the assertion that this study doesn't scale to "real science" - I think it very much does.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think that you and sigma are using two different definitions for evolution, Spidey.

How many definitions are there in this context?

I believe in Evolution but not in the sense as it's given. I think the very main catalyst for Evolution is atmospheric then "everything" evolves or expires within the conditions set by that atmospheric change. So, if we ever do physically observe Evolution, it will be something that happens relatively quickly and still subject to physical laws.

Spidey wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think that you and sigma are using two different definitions for evolution, Spidey.

How many definitions are there in this context?

How things propagate by seed in the first place, as opposed to changes in seed bearing plants passed on to the next. Sigma said he felt this could only have been created, and then you said you understand how evolution works. In order for you to understand it, it has to be observable, so I take it you're dealing with evolution as a subject of incremental, minute changes whereas sigma is dealing with the big picture of seed propagation as a perceivable design.

I.E. How plants supposedly evolved to propagate by seed VS how plants "evolve" to display more or less of various traits (seedless grapes, etc).

snoopy wrote:But... why do you feel that other models do affect our ability to do science? Let's take the just-now-created universe: If it's created just now with the appearance of age... how does that affect the way that we do our science? I can see it being used as a cop-out, but then evolution is used as a cop-out, so at that point both are just excuses to be lazy. I can see how either the just now universe or the evolution models might motivate us to do science - a-la "I'm going to use science to prove that I'm the one that's right not those other guys." My argument is that science is really about developing theories, testing them, and learning from them - and that those mechanics can be equally applied and be equally useful regardless of the theories that you're trying to develop, test, and use.

It's not impossible to use a less intuitive but fully compatible model, but it makes things unnecessarily difficult. The model that there was a big bang billions of years ago immediately explains why some things look very old. On the other hand, the model that the universe is one second old but was created to look like there was a big bang billions of years ago always requires that second mental step.

We used to think that there was a luminiferous ether that light traveled through. With theories like relativity, we no longer need it, so we say there isn't one. That doesn't mean that relativity can't be explained in terms of one, but just that it brings nothing useful to the table and only makes the model more complicated.

flip wrote:I believe in Evolution but not in the sense as it's given. I think the very main catalyst for Evolution is atmospheric then "everything" evolves or expires within the conditions set by that atmospheric change. So, if we ever do physically observe Evolution, it will be something that happens relatively quickly and still subject to physical laws.

I do not quite understand what the relationship between atmospheric and, accordingly, temperature changes of climate change and diversity of species of flora and fauna...
Let's start with the fact that every living organism has a well-defined code of DNA. If Australopithecus even a thousand years will jump on the trees, it can not grow a tail like a spider monkey. Do you agree? In my opinion, to create a new species of life in the changed conditions for the existence of life, still need the intervention of the Creator of this life. Evolution is impossible in principle, if I may say frankly. Progress - yes. But not evolution. Natural environment and the human mind can do only mutations from perfect, but no more. I have long been convinced that our Creator has been perfecting his creation - life on planet Earth (as well as 99,999% in other star systems) in the same way as a person develops a condition of its existence.

Well, the DNA itself does not change, only what parts are expressed. For instance, they found dormant sections of DNA to be activated in space and vice-versa for active sections. They have even said that 97% of DNA is "junk", just there taking up space. I myself say the code is written in such a way as to cover all possibilities.

ST...

I don’t need to observe something to understand it, usually a good explanation will do.

I have a taken few graduate studies on electronics and electric theory, I don’t have to take apart my microwave to understand how it works.

In this context I believe sigma was referring to the origins of species…as was I. (evolution is the term most used, to refer to this)

I try not to quibble on such things, so yes, I was talking about the same thing he was.

(context is your friend)

sigma wrote:If Australopithecus even a thousand years will jump on the trees, it can not grow a tail like a spider monkey. Do you agree?

I agree that Australopithecus probably cannot grow a spider monkey tail in 1000 years. However, the degree of evolution you speak of happens on much wider timescales. Give Australopithecus 10 million years and he will look completely different.

Well I apologize for misconstrue what you were saying. And for insulting your grasp of the context while I was at it.

IMO evolution as a matter of origins is accepted rather than understood. Some might call that splitting hairs, but it really isn't unless you grant that there are different types of understanding, such as understanding the way a microwave works, or understanding it on a level which allows you to construct or more pertinently change or improve upon one with the expectation that it will operate. Sometimes there is an understanding which allows a person to have a mathematical grasp of something, if you will, at a low resolution, even though in truth it can be rather a bastardization of the underlying reality. This happens in grade school curriculum all the time. You can call it understanding, and most everyone accepts that, but is it?

In fact, I’m pretty sure you yourself can understand the concept of evolution, but have chosen not to accept it.

Sure I admit I don’t know every detail of how evolution works, nor do I know every detail of how a microwave works, if you go down to a subatomic level, or even a quantum level, but that doesn’t hinder my understanding of the device or the basic theory behind it, and yes I could build a microwave oven with my eyes closed…I only have over 30 years of experience designing and building electro-mechanical devices.

The concept of evolution is in fact a very simple one to grasp and understand, as is the theory, the mechanics of evolution require more specialized knowledge, some I have but most I admit I don’t.

But the subject here doesn’t require intimate knowledge to understand it.

So if you want to squabble the “level” of understanding, then sure you win, because I could never claim “complete” understanding.

Hell, I couldn’t claim the “complete” understanding of anything, for they matter, can you?

Spidey wrote:In fact, I’m pretty sure you yourself can understand the concept of evolution, but have chosen not to accept it.

Certainly true.

Spidey wrote:Sure I admit I don’t know every detail of how evolution works, nor do I know every detail of how a microwave works, if you go down to a subatomic level, or even a quantum level, but that doesn’t hinder my understanding of the device or the basic theory behind it, and yes I could build a microwave oven with my eyes closed…I only have over 30 years of experience designing and building electro-mechanical devices.

The concept of evolution is in fact a very simple one to grasp and understand, as is the theory, the mechanics of evolution require more specialized knowledge, some I have but most I admit I don’t.

But the subject here doesn’t require intimate knowledge to understand it.

So if you want to squabble the “level” of understanding, then sure you win, because I could never claim “complete” understanding.

Hell, I couldn’t claim the “complete” understanding of anything, for they matter, can you?

The direction I was actually going with this is that it is possible with a limited understanding to find something perfectly graspable and reasonable, until you actually go deeper and encounter the reality of it. Perhaps you've heard the phrase that I will paraphrase, "It's not that Liberals are stupid, it's just that they know so much that isn't so". Just because something computes does not mean that it's necessarily in agreement with reality. The reason I pose it is because this is the situation that the majority of the public finds themselves in with regard to the theory of evolution. I propose that it is not actually possible in reality, and that the reality is that everything we see needed to have a designer. I believe that designer is God, and that He has given us the Bible as a revelation of His creation, His nature, His standards, His care for and involvement his creation, and His will for us.

So I'm not trying to suggest that you need to shut up until you have sub-atomic knowledge on any matter, I'm just trying to point out the level of real knowledge there is with regard to evolution, and the very real possibility from your end that it may not be so at all for all of its logical constructs.

By the way, I don't think you addressed my point on microwaves... do you think it's possible that you understand more about them now than when you first understood them conceptually? Could you have modified the design after 6 months or 1 of your 30 years and expected it to work? Maybe microwaves are too simple, I don't know, maybe a car would be a better example. Almost everyone knows conceptually how a car works.

I’m not sure I fully understand that question, no I couldn’t even start to build a microwave after only 6 months or a year after I started in electronics…it would take many years of experience, that I gained later.

I can’t disagree with you on your larger point, but I’m going to have to stick to what I said. I believe in evolution because I “think” I understand it, not because I have faith in science.

Sure, I could be wrong. I don’t really have a problem with that, and anytime you can prove me wrong…more power to ya.

Thorne's veiled conceit, he knows reality, it is God, and all who don't believe just as he does are deluded.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Just because something computes does not mean that it's necessarily in agreement with reality.

Technically true, and that's exactly why all scientific theories are tentative until better ones are made. It is also why this...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I propose that it is not actually possible in reality, and that the reality is that everything we see needed to have a designer. I believe that designer is God, and that He has given us the Bible as a revelation of His creation, His nature, His standards, His care for and involvement his creation, and His will for us.

...is totally useless if we want to understand anything because it explains nothing and only adds more questions.

In my opinion, atheistic thinking has always been inherent in the inquisitive mind of man. Even when atheists were burned at the stake religious fanatics. In my opinion, religion hinders the development of scientific thinking.
And, by the way, people have always sought to scientific knowledge, long before the birth of Charles Darwin.
Actually, the theory of evolution is a scientific approach to the knowledge of our Creator Therefore, even the name of the topic of discussion here can be called incorrect.

Actually, the theory of evolution is a scientific approach to the knowledge of our Creator Therefore, even the name of the topic of discussion here can be called incorrect.

Exactly, and it irks me to no end that the 2 have been made to oppose each other. It's all about mechanics to me, seeing intelligent design in everything should be a no-brainer. There is precedent in the Bible for Evolution. The reason I think atmospheric change is the main catalyst is because of the story of Noah. It implies that a rainbow had never been seen before and in this new atmosphere, man's lifespan is greatly shortened. Then I wonder how this correlates to the Cambrian Explosion. Before that, hardly anything then suddenly every major phylum that will ever exist, suddenly does. It seems to imply a basis for life that changes and adapts with each major shift of environment. Same basis each time, different portions of DNA activated accordingly.

I too see the design in all things, including nature and the universe in total, but what I don’t know is if that design was created by a god, or is inherent in the universe in the first place.

It may be existence can only be possible if certain conditions are in place, conditions we as humans perceive as design.

In my opinion, a balanced symbiosis between science and religion will have a positive influence on the development of science, and that the progress of religion. It is quite obvious that the knowledge of God through religion has great potential for knowledge of the Creator through science. Nevertheless, I am always against blind faith in God...

I know exactly what you mean Spidey.

EDIT: I guess what does it for me is going back to the very beginning. An explosion of pure energy that over time assimilates itself into a living, breathing ecosystem. There's too many examples to delve into.

Jeff250 wrote:It's not impossible to use a less intuitive but fully compatible model, but it makes things unnecessarily difficult. The model that there was a big bang billions of years ago immediately explains why some things look very old. On the other hand, the model that the universe is one second old but was created to look like there was a big bang billions of years ago always requires that second mental step.

Yeah, so if you're using science to study the age of the universe you have a point. And if you're using science to run the LHC and study atomic particles, and they somehow relate to how the universe is knit together or some such then okay.

If you're using science to develop the next telecommunications system, or the next battery, of fusion power - how does the "actual" age of the universe matter? Furthermore, if you're using science to study biology origins still stay irrelevant - if you want to start talking about "what should we do about it" then you're getting into philosophy.

snoopy wrote:Yeah, so if you're using science to study the age of the universe you have a point. And if you're using science to run the LHC and study atomic particles, and they somehow relate to how the universe is knit together or some such then okay.

If you're using science to develop the next telecommunications system, or the next battery, of fusion power - how does the "actual" age of the universe matter?

As far as I know, it doesn't. For the vast majority of people on the earth, their understanding of the age of the universe doesn't affect what they do. And I think that's why bad models of the universe are still so prevalent. Most people are asymptomatic carriers of these bad models. On the other hand, if everyone were, say, a geologist, the people who had the best model would quickly out-compete those with bad models until those bad models no longer existed.

snoopy wrote:Furthermore, if you're using science to study biology origins still stay irrelevant - if you want to start talking about "what should we do about it" then you're getting into philosophy.

I don't know if I understand what you mean. If you're talking about the origin of life on earth, I don't think very many scientists would oppose someone who believed that a higher power provided the initial spark, simply because it doesn't have great practical import, and, at least at present, it's something we don't understand all too well. (I would be concerned about God of the gaps though...)

I think I understand what Snoopy is getting at. I am well on my way to getting my Physics degree now and as much as I love theoretical physics, when it came right down to it, I found no good practical use for it. So, I decided to focus on the practical applications and decided that Nuclear power plants are the only viable energy source in the future and will concentrate my efforts there.

flip wrote:I think I understand what Snoopy is getting at. I am well on my way to getting my Physics degree now and as much as I love theoretical physics, when it came right down to it, I found no good practical use for it. So, I decided to focus on the practical applications and decided that Nuclear power plants are the only viable energy source in the future and will concentrate my efforts there.

well if that's the case, then I have one word for you. Thorium.