Anti-science or anti-evolution?

A blog reader sent me an e-mail a couple of weeks ago taking me to task for calling any groups who oppose evolution “anti-science.” The writer wants to know why I say “anti-science” instead of simply “anti-evolution.” Here is my response:

Thank you very much for your thought-provoking e-mail. I can understand that you and others might take offense at the descriptor “anti-science,” but I do use the term with a purpose.

First, in your e-mail you note that I reference groups that do not support evolution as being anti-science. That is not accurate. The difference is that the groups I refer to are not just non-supportive, but rather actively fight against the teaching of evolution. The distinction may seem like nit picking, but I believe it’s not. There are plenty of movements, activities and such that I don’t support, but I don’t actively attack them. The groups I reference do attack evolution … and how! If you are not one of those who attack evolution, then one can safely say that you may not be anti-science.

But why take that extra step into anti-science rather than just anti-evolution? Because those who do attack evolution do so through the use of publicity, public relations spin, big tent revivals, books targeted at the general public, etc. What they refuse to do is any actual science. I would think that if these folks had anything to contribute in the realm of science, they would do the actual work and quit harping about it in the public eye, at least until they have some actual science to harp about. Want to get into the science textbooks? Then do some experiments. Contribute to the body of scientific knowledge.

During the Dover, Pa. court case that tested whether intelligent design (ID) should be mentioned in the high school biology classroom, Michael Behe testified on behalf of ID. While being questioned, he admitted that the very definition of science itself would have to be changed to accommodate ID. Yes, I would call that anti-science.

Too many people want to express an opinion about evolution without first having any type of grounding in basic science first. The big warning sign that this is the case is when someone denigrates evolution as just a “theory.” This clearly demonstrates that the complainer doesn’t have sufficient background to be speaking knowledgeably about the subject. The word theory in science does not mean a guess or hunch. Quite the opposite. Theory is an explanation of a body of facts. The theory of evolution has withstood vigorous testing and has not only stood the test of time, but has strengthened. So, for someone to brush off a century and a half of research as “just a theory” certainly qualifies as anti-science in my book.

Thank you for your time and interest,
Brandon Haught

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Analysis/Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Anti-science or anti-evolution?

  1. Hi Brandon

    Very well written blog and I’m totally behind you. Science is my life and I’m very well aware of the rigorous challenges that all scientific theories do go through.

    I retired from NASA after 29 years and have BS degree in Civil Engineering so that speaks for my science background

    Joe

  2. Shaughn Berry says:

    Stick it to the man, brother!

  3. wright says:

    A very concise and clear explanation. Those who attempt to dispute evolution or any other branch of modern science must do so ON THE TERMS OF SCIENCE.

    In the western world (and the US in particular), the idea, “all sides to any dispute deserve an equal hearing” is too often distorted into, “all sides to any dispute are equally legitimate”.

    While this may hold true– occasionally– with social and political issues, it utterly fails when applied to science. If a new theory in a given field can provide better explanations and predictions than any predecessors, then it gains acceptance.

    If it can’t, then it is discarded, unless flogged by those unwilling to give up their cherished preconceptions. Or who wish to use it to advance another agenda.

  4. KrAzYkArL says:

    religion separates the world and turns people into xenophobic, closed-minded sheep

  5. FRDiamond says:

    During the Dover, Pa. court case that tested whether intelligent design (ID) should be mentioned in the high school biology classroom, Michael Behe testified on behalf of ID. While being questioned, he admitted that the very definition of science itself would have to be changed to accommodate ID. Yes, I would call that anti-science.

    The “very defintion of science would have to be “changed””? What established definition of science are you talking about? Have you been able to do what philsophers of science have thus far been unable to do; namely, establish demarcation criteria for what constitutes science and what does not?

    If you look at the transcript of the Dover trial, though, Behe admitted no such thing. What he did do is define the term, “theory” broadly, in the sense of “approach”, “model”, “hypothesis”, which is very often the way working scientists actually use the term in the scientific, peer reviewed literature. That this is not the way that ACLU lawyers such as Rothschild and others with a political agenda prefer that it be used is the real irritant, not Behe’s supposed misuse of the term.

    If scientists’ use of the term ‘theory’ has passed peer review then on what facts is your complaint based?

    Cordially,

  6. JLO says:

    Here’s the Behe quote from the trial transcript:

    “Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.”

    So yes, FRDiamond, he is trying to change the definition of a scientific theory. Hell, the first three words tell you that. And of course his own conclusion busts it right there.

    Are we really going to keep discarded theories as accepted theories just to play the frame game with Michael Behe?

    I’m glad the NAS doesn’t see it that way.

  7. FRDiamond says:

    So yes, FRDiamond, he is trying to change the definition of a scientific theory.

    For the second time, change the definition from what? What definition are you talking about?

    Cordially,

  8. JLO says:

    FRD, the answer to your question is right there in the Dover transcript. Day 11 (October 18), PM Session, Part 1.

    You know it’s funny, FRD started this ridiculous tirade this way, “If you look at the transcript of the Dover trial, …”

    But FRD, it’s clear that you did no such thing.

    Hey everyone, if you want to spot a liar, look for phrases like, “If you go back and read …” or “If you go back and look at …”

    FRD, you’ve must have learned that trick from Tony Snow. But it’s easy to see thru.

    Now for those of you who are rational. The National Academy of Sciences have rigorous standards that are reviewed constantly and maintain what is and is not valid science. They, as well as every other respectable scientific institution in the world, have determined that ID is not valid science, and that the theories of Natural Selection and Common Descent are indeed valid scientific theories. They meet the standards. ID does not.

    Any “changes” that Michael Behe suggests would be “changes” from those standards. And any such changes would sweep in ID, alchemy, astrology, ghosts, goblins, haunted trees etc.

    Hey FRD, does that sound like a “change in the definition of science” to you? It does to everyone else.

    It’s not a bumper sticker like “teach the controversy”, it’s a rigorous standard. Or even more accurately, it’s a set of standards. And they are poured over by people who know what they’re talking about – professional scientists. Lot’s of professional scientists. Not people with religious motives like FRD.

  9. FRDiamond says:

    Asking a question is a tirade? You resort to ad hominem so quickly!

    Your allegation that I have not read the transcipt is false. I have read the transcript. What is clear is not that I have not read the transcript, but that it is impossible for you to have sufficient knowledge of my reading habits to be able to sustain and support the gratuitous insinuation that I am a liar.

    Now for those of you who are rational. The National Academy of Sciences have rigorous standards that are reviewed constantly and maintain what is and is not valid science. They, as well as every other respectable scientific institution in the world, have determined that ID is not valid science, and that the theories of Natural Selection and Common Descent are indeed valid scientific theories. They meet the standards. ID does not.

    It is enough for me to note that you are here making an ecclesiastical argument, not a scientific one. You are merely appealing to authority.

    Here’s another “tirade” for you. Did the NAS conduct a SCIENTIFIC study to determine how the word, “theory” is actually USED BY WORKING SCIENTIST in the peer reviewed scientific literature to derive their defintion? No?

    Any “changes” that Michael Behe suggests would be “changes” from those standards. And any such changes would sweep in ID, alchemy, astrology, ghosts, goblins, haunted trees etc.

    And what you don’t seem to realize yet is that if Rothschild’s word games were taken seriously it would render ANY scientific HYPOTHESIS as on par with astrology.

    Do you or the NAS have any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that the word “theory” is not very often used in peer-reviewed scientific literature by professional scientists exactly the way Behe said it is, or not?

    Cordially,

  10. JLO says:

    You are on a tirade. You did much more than just ask a question. You are part of a dangerous attack on valid science. And you’re wrong.

    If you did read the transcripts before you wrote “If you look at the transcript of the Dover trial …” then you’re simply lying. Take your pick.

    And now you’re lying again with this: “… if Rothschild’s word games were taken seriously it would render ANY scientific HYPOTHESIS as on par with astrology.”

    No, again, if the standards set by respectable scientific institutions such as the NAS are followed then Natural Selection and Common Descent qualify and ID does not.

    ID proponents aren’t attacking the “hypothesis of evolution”, and they claim their ideas are much more than a “hypothesis”. They claim it’s a scientific theory and has as much validity as evolution. No it does not. Behe is wrong. You are wrong.

    Michael Behe is trying to change the definition(s) of science so he can get more funding from the faithful. Tirade over.

    Oh, but let me beat you to the punch. Here’s the gist of what you’ll say next: “Do you have any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that the poop that comes out of my mouth is merely just POOP! (btw, thanks for your immature use of caps, ie screaming)

    Yes, FRD, there is tons of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Museums full of it. Science classes based upon it. Journals (real ones) published with it.

    You are nothing but dishonest.

  11. Gary Queensberry says:

    Teach real science in science class. Teach religion in religion or philosophy class. Teach the scientific theory and the fact of evoluotion. Don’t hinder science and the human races future with 2,000+ year old tales of shepherds and goat herders.

  12. bbrown says:

    Your blog has the typical scientific rhetoric that is passed as fact. I am not a scientist nor would even I claim to be overly intelligent, but I do know that what is taught in our schools is simply someone’s theory and not fact as some here have stated. There is much evidence to refute Darwin’s claims that we are all lucky mud, even Darwin himself stated he may be wrong.

    A few sources would be the DVD series “Creatures that Defy Evolution”, Focus on the Family has a series called the “Truth Project” that is outstanding (although you may have to attend a Sunday School class) and information from http://www.creationministries.org. I would suggest that the scientific minds having input here simply take some time to openmindedly study the other side of the equation before closing the book— we have certainly had to sit through years of the evolutionist “theories” through the public school systems.

  13. JLO says:

    bbrown:

    I am not a scientist nor would even I claim to be overly intelligent, …

    And you certainly go on to prove that.

    but I do know that what is taught in our schools is simply someone’s theory and not fact …

    Ignorance, plain and simple. First, all scientific theories are theories and not fact. Evolution is singled out for one reason only, because it contradicts the Book of Genesis.

    Also, in science a theory is much more than a fact. If a fact were a bucket of water then a theory is an ocean.

    There is much evidence to refute Darwin’s claims that we are all lucky mud, even Darwin himself stated he may be wrong.

    Dishonesty, plain and simple. Darwin’s main theories are called, “Natural Selection” and “Common Descent”. And no where in any of his writings, nor in any modern biology book, does it say that we are “lucky mud”. This is a mis-characterization of his work and it is completely dishonest. People who repeat this lie are called liars. You, bbrown, are a liar.

    As for Darwin admitting that he could be wrong, I’d like to thank you for pointing out what an honest man he was. I agree with you. He was an open minded, honest scientist who understood that we must follow the evidence where it leads us.

    Now to address the links and references that you’ve offered. If ID has any scientific value then why do they feel the need to skip the scientific process and go right for the high school biology class?

    No other subjects get to do that, why should we let ID follow that path?

    If it has scientific value then go show it to the scientist and let them pour over it. Oh wait, they already did that and the concept was found to be supernatural and not science. No experiments possible, no arguments refutable, and all questions to be answered by invoking the “creator”.

    So bbrown, the conclusion is that you are ignorant and dishonest.

  14. bbrown says:

    JLO

    You are typical of the anti-christian left-wingers, angry and closed minded. You can throw your “ignorant” and “liar” tags at me if it makes you feel better however, you really should try researching some of the sources I’ve mentioned— you may be surprised.

    Regards

  15. JLO says:

    bbrown

    You are typical of the anti-science right-wingers, ignorant and dishonest. You can throw your “anti-christian” and “left-wing” tags at me if it makes you feel better however, I already have researched some of the sources you’ve mentioned – and I was surprised.

    (Btw, see how inane your responses are?)

    I read several items in each of those links and I was surprised at how ignorant and dishonest those people are as well. Now I see what you’re regurgitating.

    If you write something that reveals your lack of knowledge of that very subject, then you deserve to be called ignorant.

    If you write something that is clearly not true then you deserve to be called a liar.

    If you don’t like these labels, then stop ignoring facts, and stop saying things that we all know not to be true.

    Disregards

  16. bbrown says:

    JLO

    You read several items in each of those links— wow you are informed.

    All I am saying is I can no more look at an automobile and think it’s design and construction evolved from some swirling matter, or that my house used to be trees that developed over time. I cannot look at the human nervous system, the vascular system of a giraffe or even the reproductive cycle of a river mussell and believe it to be a matter of chance. If you have a creation there must be a creator.

    You continue to believe what you like and take your hard line stance against those who cast any doubt on your so called facts. Meanwhile I would rather live my life as if there is a God and find I’m wrong than live without God and find I’m wrong.

    I’m Done

  17. JLO says:

    All I am saying is I can no more look at an automobile and think it’s design and construction evolved from some swirling matter

    But that’s not what the theories of evolution say.

    They don’t say that we are constructed from swirling matter. When are you going to get that simple fact?

    I cannot look at the human nervous system, the vascular system of a giraffe or even the reproductive cycle of a river mussell and believe it to be a matter of chance.

    But that’s not what the theories of evolution say.

    They don’t say that we are just a matter of chance. (Although, to be sure, chance does play a role. That, the theories make very clear.) When are you going to stop mis-characterizing?

    Meanwhile I would rather live my life as if there is a God and find I’m wrong than live without God and find I’m wrong.

    But what if the Muslims are right? Oh man, you are in a world of crap!
    What if the Hindus are right?
    What if the ….

    Besides, the theories of evolution also do not say that there is no god. They do not even attempt to explain the origin of life. They only attempt to explain the “Origin of Species” and the “Descent of Man” – Darwin’s works. (Perhaps it’s your turn to read something. Make it something of value this time.)

    You go ahead and live your life in fear. I would rather be exploring the wonderful world of science. If there is a god, I just hope he’s not the bitter, vindictive, petty, jealous a$$hole that I read about in the bible.

    I’m glad you’re done. This is like playing tennis against Stevie Wonder.

  18. bbrown says:

    JLO you obviously know it all— there is nothing I could say that could change your mind. Your fear is you may find there is more to life than the self-actualization you seem to be absorbed in. Why don’t you step down off of Maslow’s pyramid and actually spend a little time researching the “scientific” evidence supporting the other side of the debate. You may find there are more holes in your religion than mine, maybe you’ll be another Anthony Flew.

    Merry Christmas

  19. JLO says:

    JLO you obviously know it all

    No, bbrown, I never claimed any such thing. I will claim, however, that I know more about science than you do.

    there is nothing I could say that could change your mind.

    Amen brother.

    Your fear is you may find there is more to life than the self-actualization you seem to be absorbed in.

    Now you’re telling me what my fears are? It looks like you’re the one trying to be a know-it-all.

    Besides, self-actualization? That means: To develop or achieve one’s full potential. Thank you.

    Why don’t you step down off of Maslow’s pyramid and actually spend a little time researching the “scientific” evidence supporting the other side of the debate.

    First, Maslow’s Pyramid is just a theory. (That was fun!)

    Second, I have done research trying to find evidence supporting the other side of the debate. Something you refuse to do yourself. Have you read The Origin of Species? Have you read The Descent of Man?

    It doesn’t appear so by the way you regurgitate that crap you do.

    I have read Darwin’s Black Box, Icons of Evolution and all the web sites I can stomach. I always find them to be long on attacking Darwin and short on data collecting, testable hypotheses, or scientific value. I also find them constantly invoking god. Just like you bbrown.

    You may find there are more holes in your religion than mine, maybe you’ll be another Anthony Flew.

    I have no religion, so you win on the whole holes thing as a whole.

    As for Anthony Flew, he was an atheist most his life, all during the years when his mind was young and nimble. Then at the age of 81 he became a deist – not a christian, a deist. And he did so only to address the issue of abiogenesis – not to contradict the theories of evolution.

    What liars like you, bbrown, do all the time is (conveniently) forget that the theories of evolution do not attempt to explain abiogenisis – the origins of life itself. The theories attempt to explain the diversity of life.

    Another trick liars like you do is to point to an atheist who has converted away from atheism, all the while forgetting about the thousands of people who convert in the other direction every single day – people like me.

    Also, I can show what a liar you are with one more quote. Here’s a quote from you two posts ago!

    I’m done.

    Wow bbrown, you can’t even make a two word statement without lying about it!

  20. bbrown says:

    Hey J-Lo, you are the winner— I’m going to rush out and replace my Fish with the little Evolve emblem. Viva La Evolution, Good Luck J-Lo.

    bbrown

  21. Reece says:

    creationism is a joke, i mean honestly, have you ever looked at the fossils they’ve unearthed? I don’t mean to be close minded but, i don’t believe in god. Most religions have one god of ultimate power. . . unless you’re a christian and you’re confused by the “father” the “son” and the “holy spirit”. . . most religions disbelieve in other religions gods. . . i just take it one god further

  22. evy says:

    these creationists don’t stand a chance posting here! Some serious burnage going on. I love it

  23. Vade says:

    JLO, ya woulda made a great preacher. Lucky for us fed-up antitheists that you missed that calling. You gotta figure that these poor thickheads have no idea about the real operations of the Discovery Institute or the whole ID movement. How many of them do you think have ever even heard of the Wedge Document?

    Keep swingin, JLO

  24. Digital says:

    Here’s an idea…

    If you support ID, give us proof. Something we can test, see, and/or validate. THEN you’ll get scientific support. Ask questions about the world that can NOT be answered by cause and effect.

    Or…

    Ask your questions. Ask what you think are flaws in scientific work. Not only ask, but LISTEN. Most of the arguments I have saw used in this way are based on questions that have been answered years ago.

    Name calling, whining, and bitching gets no where.

  25. Digital says:

    As a side note, that goes both way.

    You do far more harm then good by lowering our arguments to childishly throwing around sayings you see on t-shirts and calling them stupid.
    Frankly this is the what we are fighting against, and you throwing your athiesm in their face is no better then them throwing their god in yours. And it has about as much effect.

    If you want to ‘attack’ them, read a book, hit’em with facts… they melt like the wicked witch

Comments are closed.