Remember the homeschooled teen who wrote a letter to the editor taking evolution to task? FSU physics professor Paul Cottle wrote her back.
We cannot even have a meaningful discussion about ethical issues involving science unless we agree on what science is. If we agree that science is the means for building our understanding of the laws of nature through systematic observations, then we have a basis for discussion with all of society.
When we allow our beliefs about the purpose of life to blunt our willingness to observe nature and our God-given abilities to reason, then we lose the ability to discuss important issues of scientific ethics with those who do not share our beliefs.
A quick correction and a comment.
First off, the correction… the link is
http://www.theledger.com/article/20081008/COLUMNISTS/810080306
The one in the root article does not work.
Now for the comment. While I wish he’d put front and center the evidence in favor of evolution, my colleague Paul Cottle makes an interesting point, which I think is worthwhile thinking about for communicating with the many religious people in our state.
We cannot just say to creationists, “you have been brainwashed” — even though it’s clear they have been. Simply put, very often we rationalists do not speak the same language they do. Their viewpoint is fundamentally different, and they see at every turn the hand of a personal God, whereas we try to analyze things from the start. We hate it when religion is shoved in our face … and so, when we just say to them that they are wrong, they just turn off. They don’t analyze the facts as presented them, they just start quoting from stuff that they hear either at church or on christian radio about evolution, never mind its lack of truth … and so the cycle begins.
We do need a different way of communicating with religious people, helping them to understand evolution — hopefully accepting it eventually — and grow while not confronting them. The religious among us may do a better job of speaking their language than we do — particularly one on one — even if they don’t say things the way we’d like. We need to keep in mind that it is NOT our job to question their faith or tell them their religion is full of it. The minute we do that, we lose any chance to convince them, as well as any chance of a reasonable discussion.
Quoting, but not in order of appearance:
Eric Perlman Says:
October 12th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
“We need to keep in mind that it is NOT our job to question their faith or tell them their religion is full of it. The minute we do that, we lose any chance to convince them, as well as any chance of a reasonable discussion.”
Then:
“We cannot just say to creationists, “you have been brainwashed†— even though it’s clear they have been.”
And:
“Simply put, very often we rationalists…”
So you have stated that creationists are brainwashed, irrational and full of it in a forum that is read by creationists, but it is ill advised to tell creationists such things.
Brilliant!
What Eric is advocating is a more non-confrontational approach when conveying the principles of evolution to a creationist audience. Most of us make no attempt to hide our contempt for the creationist ideology and the hypocrisy of its more fanatical proponents. The problem now is that the current creationist strategy against evolution creates a falsely inflexible scenario with the assumption that to accept evolution is to stop believing in God. I’m sure most of us here realize that despite all that has been said about science and religion, the will to protect one’s religious convictions does not relent so easily with just mere ridicule. The strategy being advocated right now is : “Why fight against it when you can bypass it entirely?” The Clergy Letter Project is a good example of this.
Someone once told me that “A belief in the absence of all evidence is faith. A belief in contradiction to overwhelming, verifiable, and repeatedly consistent evidence is delusion.” Until the creationists come up with evidence that makes actual use of experimental methods to justify calling it “overwhelming, verifiable, and repeatedly consistent,” the claims that they continue to make will remain as they are: garbage.