E Coli Evolves - But Not Creationists
Y'know, I'm really getting tired of creationists lying for Jesus. This doesn't mean that I'm surprised. After all, when your entire approach to truth is based upon blindly believing a heavily-edited collection of ancient books without any corroborating evidence, you're obviously not thinking too clearly.
There is, however, a critical distinction between making a false claim because you honestly don't know any better, and persisting in making a false claim even after it's been conclusively debunked. The pattern is becoming both familiar and disturbing: whenever creationists are confronted by scientific proof of evolution, they employ one of two very base and disingenuous techniques:
1. Ad hominem attacks against the authors
2. Either pretending that the evidence doesn't exist, or resurrecting long-debunked criticisms of evolution to exploit the scientific ignorance of the general public
And so it went in Dover, when the creationist attempt to inject Intelligent Design creationism into the local science curriculum failed (you can watch a wonderful documentary going through the whole process at the NOVA website). Despite the fact that it was clearly shown in a court of law (before a Bush-appointed judge, no less) that the proponents of ID were being wholly disingenuous about their aims and goals, the IDers continue to repeat the same line about how they're really doing science and that it isn't at all religious.
Then came Expelled, where Ben Stein narrates a film that attempts to link Nazism and Evolutionary theory, ultimately making science responsible for the Holocaust (see the wonderfully produced Expelled Exposed site for voluminous details about this sordid little drama). Not only does the film itself get most everything wrong, but the producers deliberately lied to the scientists they interviewed about the name, purpose and editorial position of the film (both Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers go into the story at length on their respective websites/blogs).
But the latest development in the battle to promote science shows just how far the creationists will go to deny the ... well ... obvious. Enter Richard Lenski, a distinguished professor at Michigan State who has taken 20 years to carefully cultivate, observe, and document the evolution of 40,000 generations of e coli bacteria (two very good descriptions of of this research and its implications can be found here and here). To summarize his research even more briefly: evolution is a fact. Period.
Some of the creationist responses to the research (found on The Loom Blog) are really just too good to be true (my personal favorite is: "If the bacteria changed, it was clearly because God willed it. He does that sometimes, you know. ... You'll go to hell for your blasphemy."). But to get a real feel for the difference between science and scared religion, read the exchanges between Lenski and the editor of the Conservapedia.
I'm beginning to see why playing loose and free with the truth, the facts, what evolutionary theory actually predicts, etc. should be expected from the creationist camp. It actually makes sense that they've adopted a battle plan to win by any means necessary (even if it contradicts traditional Christian notions of fair play, truthfulness, not bearing false witness against your neighbor, etc.). It's because they're fundamentally right (if you'd like to stop now and blurt out "What the hell are you talking about??" go right ahead .... I'll wait ....)
To paraphrase Sam Harris, someone has to be right in the evolution / creation debate. The key difference is this: Science can still exist if it's wrong. After all, science has been wrong many times in the past -- and this is a good thing. Germ theory, plate tectonics theory, evolutionary theory (especially paleontology) -- all have benefited from errors and corrections that made the theories stronger and more accurate. That's what's great about science: the method of inquiry is not damaged by positive or negative conclusions. I don't believe in Darwin or evolution as deities or sacred things. But, based upon the available evidence, these are the best, most consistent explanations I've heard of how we got here. Give me a better explanation that fits the data, and I'll happily accept it.
The creationists are in a totally different boat. They want to interpret their bible literally, and hence their litmus test for truth or falsehood isn't concerned about the evidence: it's concerned about confirming what they already believe. If the world wasn't created in 6 days, if their particular "god" isn't responsible for this creation, if there was no single great flood, if the sun didn't stand still in the sky, if ancient people didn't live over 900 years ... then the whole house of cards collapses. They must be right or else they're wrong.
And because of this they will fight tenaciously to resist any and all evidence for evolution, the big bang, and anything else that contradicts their literal interpretation of their "scripture". If they can't win the argument with facts, they will resort to a time honored tradition: they'll lie for Jesus.
There is, however, a critical distinction between making a false claim because you honestly don't know any better, and persisting in making a false claim even after it's been conclusively debunked. The pattern is becoming both familiar and disturbing: whenever creationists are confronted by scientific proof of evolution, they employ one of two very base and disingenuous techniques:
1. Ad hominem attacks against the authors
2. Either pretending that the evidence doesn't exist, or resurrecting long-debunked criticisms of evolution to exploit the scientific ignorance of the general public
And so it went in Dover, when the creationist attempt to inject Intelligent Design creationism into the local science curriculum failed (you can watch a wonderful documentary going through the whole process at the NOVA website). Despite the fact that it was clearly shown in a court of law (before a Bush-appointed judge, no less) that the proponents of ID were being wholly disingenuous about their aims and goals, the IDers continue to repeat the same line about how they're really doing science and that it isn't at all religious.
Then came Expelled, where Ben Stein narrates a film that attempts to link Nazism and Evolutionary theory, ultimately making science responsible for the Holocaust (see the wonderfully produced Expelled Exposed site for voluminous details about this sordid little drama). Not only does the film itself get most everything wrong, but the producers deliberately lied to the scientists they interviewed about the name, purpose and editorial position of the film (both Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers go into the story at length on their respective websites/blogs).
But the latest development in the battle to promote science shows just how far the creationists will go to deny the ... well ... obvious. Enter Richard Lenski, a distinguished professor at Michigan State who has taken 20 years to carefully cultivate, observe, and document the evolution of 40,000 generations of e coli bacteria (two very good descriptions of of this research and its implications can be found here and here). To summarize his research even more briefly: evolution is a fact. Period.
Some of the creationist responses to the research (found on The Loom Blog) are really just too good to be true (my personal favorite is: "If the bacteria changed, it was clearly because God willed it. He does that sometimes, you know. ... You'll go to hell for your blasphemy."). But to get a real feel for the difference between science and scared religion, read the exchanges between Lenski and the editor of the Conservapedia.
I'm beginning to see why playing loose and free with the truth, the facts, what evolutionary theory actually predicts, etc. should be expected from the creationist camp. It actually makes sense that they've adopted a battle plan to win by any means necessary (even if it contradicts traditional Christian notions of fair play, truthfulness, not bearing false witness against your neighbor, etc.). It's because they're fundamentally right (if you'd like to stop now and blurt out "What the hell are you talking about??" go right ahead .... I'll wait ....)
To paraphrase Sam Harris, someone has to be right in the evolution / creation debate. The key difference is this: Science can still exist if it's wrong. After all, science has been wrong many times in the past -- and this is a good thing. Germ theory, plate tectonics theory, evolutionary theory (especially paleontology) -- all have benefited from errors and corrections that made the theories stronger and more accurate. That's what's great about science: the method of inquiry is not damaged by positive or negative conclusions. I don't believe in Darwin or evolution as deities or sacred things. But, based upon the available evidence, these are the best, most consistent explanations I've heard of how we got here. Give me a better explanation that fits the data, and I'll happily accept it.
The creationists are in a totally different boat. They want to interpret their bible literally, and hence their litmus test for truth or falsehood isn't concerned about the evidence: it's concerned about confirming what they already believe. If the world wasn't created in 6 days, if their particular "god" isn't responsible for this creation, if there was no single great flood, if the sun didn't stand still in the sky, if ancient people didn't live over 900 years ... then the whole house of cards collapses. They must be right or else they're wrong.
And because of this they will fight tenaciously to resist any and all evidence for evolution, the big bang, and anything else that contradicts their literal interpretation of their "scripture". If they can't win the argument with facts, they will resort to a time honored tradition: they'll lie for Jesus.
posted by DrJDG @ 16:28
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home