Friday, April 2, 2010
In Denial?
On page 221 Coyne writes "the evidence is convincing, but they're not convinced. how can that be? other areas of science aren't plagued by such problems." Why do you think people are reluctant to accept evolution as true despite overwhelming evidence for it? Which of the topics coyne has discussed (like fossils, vestiges, atavisms, biogeography) etc cause the most doubts for evolution?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would actually like to disagree with Mr. Coyne on his statement "other areas of science aren't plagued by such problems." Though evolution is one of the most obvious fields of science that people have serious doubts about, there are also those who choose not to use the new forms of medicine, technology, etc. Sometimes the response will be "I just don't believe in ________," whether it be computers, cell phones, or ultrasound. In the case of evolution, it may be the personal preference of the person in question, or it could be a psychological thing. To accept evolution would be to accept that there is no high power governing our lives, that there's no chaperone watching over us, and therefore all descends into chaos. On another level, to accept that there is no higher power would be to accept that our actions are our own, and we are responsible for them. There is also the factor of "the great unknown," after death - without a Creator figure, a human life would seem to have no meaning except to survive and reproduce. Another factor of disbelief is that we "self-aware" animals might have evolved from such "dumb" animals such as horses, dogs, or apes. Some fossils seem to increase incredulity, like the fascinating shapes of the glyptodont, or the archeopteryx. I believe that it's not the evidence Mr. Coyne presents, but instead the basic ideology behind evolution.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with what Jolyn said, Coyne himself addresses the conflict of ideas she brought up regarding creationism early on in the introduction. He explains that “this resistance stems largely from religion….asserting that we, like other species, were objects of an instantaneous creation by a deity.” (xviii) People choose to listen to religious word and live off of principles and ideas that only have basis in blind faith, and herein lies a big part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason the idea of evolution is finding such resistance is because creationists try to discredit the evidence or twist it to prove their point. For example, Duane Gish is an American creationist that wrote Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! Though clearly this isn’t true, Gish takes advantage of the “spottiness of the fossil record” (Coyne 22) to cause discontent among proponents of evolution. In another example, he attacks the evolution of whales from land animals, questioning “how could such a transition occur, since the intermediate form would have been poorly adapted to both land and water, and thus couldn’t be built by natural selection?” (Coyne 47) He fails to mention, however, organisms like the hippopotamus that live on both land and water, that could have eventually evolved into whales when it was no longer advantageous to be on land. (http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html)
This relates to the theme science as a process, specifically misuse of this process. The use of skewed data, blemished evidence, and unsound ideas reflects either unsound experimental design or in this case, lack of use of the scientific method when trying to use evidence to prove creationism, since clearly the argument is very sketchy at this point.
First few chapters of Gish’s book was available here: http://books.google.com/books?id=C-m9AQAACAAJ&dq=Duane+T+Gish&source=an&hl=en&ei=4m-3S6TEHMP_lgf4vcSXCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CDIQ6AEwCg
People resist accepting evolution because evolution takes humanity off its pedestal. Under religious creationism, God created man in his own image. This ideology gives humanity a faux importance over other creatures. The idea that man evolved from animals as did all modern species removes this faux importance that creationism gives man. This is very similar to resistance to the heliocentric theory during the 16th century. Prior to the discovery of the heliocentric solar system, Christianity upheld a geocentric solar system, which through placing Earth at the center of the solar system makes humanity seem more important. The idea that the sun was at the center of the solar system contradicted the Bible and removed this pedestal upon which humanity had placed itself, which caused great resistance to heliocentric theory at the time. It was not until the next century with Galileo's discoveries that heliocentrism grew more established.
ReplyDeleteHowever, society has now accepted the heliocentric solar system, though it took a great amount of time for acceptance to come around. This relates to the theme of science, technology, and society in that though science may provide breakthroughs that reveal truths about our universe, society must accept this truth over old falsehoods before society can achieve the potential benefits of the scientific discovery. There is no doubt that evolution will be accepted as a truth eventually, the only question is how long it will take society to forget the falsehoods of tradition and embrace new discoveries.
Woops forgot to add source: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec02.html
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Jolyn, Radhe, and Ray all said. Like Jolyn mentioned, I do not believe it is the evidence that is flawed or unconvincing; it is people's religions and ideology. Coyne even tells about a busness man, who after listening to Coyne's argument said: "I found your evidence very convincing--but I still don't believe it" (221). A statement like this seems contradictory. But I think that it is people that are unwilling to just drop everthing and believe in evolution. Like Ray said, the idea that humans were just created by evolution seems a bit demeaning or at least disappointing. People have grown up with certain ideas, believing that God created them intentionally. Religion is ancient; it has been around for as long as anyone can remember. People have been taught that they were, as Ray said, created in God's image. Evolution suggests that we were neither created nor in the image of God, but actually evolved from lower species, the apes. Some people choose to embrace it, while others feel it as a slap in the face. Like Ray said, evolution takes humanity off a pedastal that we have set for ourselves. It also, as Coyne adresses, raises doubts in our purpose and morality. Evolution is "not a grand philosophical scheme about the meaning of life. It can't tell us what to do, or how we should behave" (225). Coyne says that many people want to believe there is reason behind their lives, and evolution cannot proivde that reassurance. Evolution suggests that we humans just came about, and that's it.
ReplyDeleteCoyne also mentions that many people believe that if we regard evolution as true--that we really did just evolve from wild beasts--then people will act like the animals that they really are. As Coyne says,"Morality will be out the window, and the law of the jungle will prevail" (225). This I another reason that people doubt evolution. Regardless of the reason, however, it seems that people choose to ignore the evidence that proves evolution because they are afraid of the "emotional consequences of facing that fact" (224). So it is not that Coyne brings up questionable or insufficient evidence, it is that people just don't want to believe in evolution because of what believing in it could imply.
Jolyn, Radhe, Ray, and Tavor all bring up good points that religion and pride for humanity are major factors that prevent people from believing in evolution. However, I believe there are other factors as well.
ReplyDeleteThe subtitle of the first chapter of Why Evolution is True is a quote from biologist Jacques Monod: "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it" (as cited in Coyne, 2009, p. 1). I do not believe that everyone understands evolution. There are many misconceptions about evolution.
One misconception about evolution is that adaptation occurs proactively (University of California, Berkeley, 2010), that organisms proactively decide which genes they pass on to their offspring. I myself originally had this misconception, and therefore was confused as to how evolution worked. In reality, adaptation occurs when chance mutations that give individuals an adaptation proliferate via natural selection. Whether or not genes are useful is not a factor for passing genes from parent to offspring; on the contrary, "mutations occur regardless of whether they would be useful to the individual" (Coyne, 2009, p. 118).
Another confusing aspect of evolution is the way in which we refer to natural selection as the subject of verbs. In sentences like "natural selection molded euphorbs and cacti into similar forms" (p. 94), it seems as though some conscious force were selecting which genes are to survive. Of course, in reality, natural selection is a process that proliferates useful genes, and it is that process that "selects" genes to survive.
Finally, a major misconception about evolution is that the process of evolution is entirely based on chance (University of California, Berkeley, 2010). Indeed, the creation of genes that allow species to adapt to new environments does occur by chance. However, the proliferation of those genes does not at all occur by chance, but rather by natural selection. In the words of Richard Dawkins, natural selection is "the non-random survival of random variants" (as cited in Coyne, 2009, p. 119). In other words, evolution is not completely based on chance because while genetic drift is based on chance, natural selection is not. That those that are unfit to survive and reproduce will die before they reproduce is a very logical concept.
Nevertheless, many people are not satisfied with the random nature of chance mutation. I visited a church once, and as part of the church service a speaker asked an audience volunteer to pick out one of three painted coins mixed in with three thousand unpainted pennies. The speaker pointed out that the probability of evolution happening as it did, of simple organic molecules one day evolving into complex humans, is much smaller than the probability of picking out one of the three painted coins. In essence, he attempted to disprove evolution by claiming that the probability of evolution happening was too slim. However, while the probability of evolution happening the way it did is slim, it is not zero. Indeed, evolution occurs over millions of years, more than enough time for millions of possible outcomes to be exhausted. And in this vast universe of ours, only one planet has life, as far as we know. The chances of evolution happening as it did are very slim, but that does not mean evolution did not and does not happen.
ReplyDeleteFinally, an issue many people have with evolution is the issue of morality. Some people refuse to believe in natural selection because they believe that natural selection justifies mass murder (as the victims were not fit to survive and reproduce and therefore should have been wiped out). But once again, this is a misconception of evolution; natural selection is simply a phenomenon, something that invariably happens to populations, not a set of rules encouraging individuals to kill other individuals. Furthermore, natural selection does not occur on the individual level, but rather on the level of populations; therefore, one individual killing other individuals has nothing to do with natural selection. Finally, natural selection does not proliferate fitness itself, but rather the genes associated with fitness. As the desire to kill is not genetic, the desire is not subject to the theme of continuity and change, and cannot be proliferated via natural selection.
In conclusion, misconceptions about evolution, genetic drift, and natural selection are major factors causing many to disbelieve evolution.
(Note: This comment and the previous comment comprise one response)