Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
How religion affects acceptance of theories
Published on August 13, 2005 By Draginol In Biology

It never ceases to amaze me how blinded some people are by their religion.  They seem to be completely unaware of how their religion has biased them taking a more open-minded approach to scientific research.

Let me give you a tale of two theories.

Evolution is a theory that stipulates a set of principles on how life on earth changes (evolves) over time.  It has a great deal of documented evidence to support it.  However, because evolution contradicts the bible, many religious people try to find ways to discount it. They close their minds to it.  In the bible, life as we know it did not evolve but was rather created directly by the hand of God. This is especially true of humans.  Most religious people either take the stories in Genesis to not be true in the literal sense but try to argue that it is true symbolically (though even that's a stretch).  But the point being, because evolution contradicts an existing deep held religious belief, some people have trouble accepting it.

But compared to the theory of gravity, evolution is rock hard fact.  We actually do not know how gravity works.  We have observed that gravity is related to mass. And we have made some formulas that describe how gravity is related to mass (F=MA for example).  But we still do not have a clue as to what causes gravity.  Why does mass create gravity? No idea (and things get sketchier about strong and weak forces too but we'll hold off that for another time).  But religious people don't challenge the theory of gravity even though it's on weaker ground.  But imagine if the bible had stated something vaguely that God's arms push down on all things to keep them in place on the world. That his infinite arms pushed objects towards bigger objects.

One can imagine the debates we'd be having if the bible spoke on gravity.  Instead of the accepted belief that gravity PULLS objects towards each other, we would instead have people arguing that no, God PUSHES people towards things based on their size or something. We'd have "Intelligent Gravitation" or something like that.  And because of that, we could potentially have real damage done to genuine scientific research because some people would insist on looking for data that supported that some mystical, super natural force was pushing people against objects rather than focusing on mass creating a pull effect (gravity) and trying to figure out why that is.

That's why things like intelligent design are so problematic. Because they're not based on any scientific evidence (no more than the belief that some unknown force is pushing all things towards other things based on their size) it can slow down scientific advancement and cloud education.

I much prefer to have my beliefs be based on the evidence rather than looking for evidence to support my pre-existing beliefs. But religion tends to be pretty dogmatic and blind people to looking at other possibilities.  It's not as if religion doesn't get its shot for explaining the universe.  Most Americans who believe in evolution (statistically) were raised in a Christian household.  That means most of them changed their views because the data supporting evolution was more compelling than the data supporting Creationism. 

Evolution wasn't taught in my high school.  I, like most people, started out believing in the bible's explanation on how humans got here.  It was only over time that I found that the bible's explanation was not plausible.  The earth was simply too old. There were too many extinct creatures. There was too much rather obvious local adaptation by animals to believe that some super natural being (or alien) was sitting around tweaking some caterpillar to look like the local vegetation in South America that had only been growing there for the past 8 million years. 

As time went on, evolution and natural selection became more and more compelling as causes of where the bio-diversity we have came from. And even once I was convinced that the theory of evolution was fact, more evidence still came my way. Just a few years ago when DNA came to be better understood there would be occasional reports on how scientists tweaked some gene in some animal to produce a radically different animal.  Then came Mitochondrial DNA tracking in which we can tell when one species was another and when.

But such evidence doesn't exist in the same form for the theory of gravity.  Luckily, the bible doesn't speak about it (which is odd since gravity is a pretty crucial thing that you would think a super being would want to talk about unless of course the writings were not by a higher being but rather by pre-industrial humans with a limited understanding of their environments but I digress).


Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Aug 15, 2005

Aah, now it all becomes clear. In the future man will travel back in time to create life

This is not about the creation of life.  It is about the manipulation of life for a purpose.  Since man is already doing that, why is it so far out of possibilities that an intelligence greater than man's did it millions or billions of years ago?

on Aug 15, 2005
If John learns to ride a bike, does that mean Bob must also know how to ride a bike?
on Aug 15, 2005
over the past 3 billion years "guiding" evolution

Well no, it's my understanding that those who take the bible as literal have the Earth dated at around 6000 years old.
I find this recent push to have "intelligent design" taught in schools to be more than a little disturbing. I respect anyone's right to believe whatever they choose, and all I ask in return is that they respect my right to find their beliefs absolutely absurd. Before you get ready to unleash some righteousness upon me for being honest in saying that, I'd ask that you first examine the way you treat the beliefs of others. Do you find Scientology absurd? It's always amusing to see how quickly the main proponents of "intelligent design" will distance themselves from their frankly limited allies in this matter. The Raelians (remember those people who claimed to have cloned humans as a publicity stunt a couple of years ago) also support the "intelligent design" theory, only their version of events relies somewhat more on extra-terrestrials having sex with things than gods per-se.

Ultimately, "intelligent design" is faith, not science, and it has no place in a science class. It has no more validity than the Scientologists claiming that our bodies are actually made up in part of aliens who were locked away in a volcano as punishment, and if you send enough money, they'll teach you to "purify" them from your bodies. I don't care whether you believe in either that or "intelligent design", neither are testable, and neither are science.
on Aug 16, 2005
And as we have learned recently, Mitochondrial DNA is what creates the Force!
on Aug 16, 2005
And as we have learned recently, Mitochondrial DNA is what creates the Force!
on Aug 16, 2005
If John learns to ride a bike, does that mean Bob must also know how to ride a bike?


sorry draginol, was that aimed at me? i'm not a fan of the Law of Causative Formation (it has interesting aspects, but is inelegant and 'morphic resonance' doesn't do it for me) - I was just being ironic.

Personally, I feel that it's the believers in the 'ever-present' God who get upset by evolution (as opposed to believers in the 'ever-past' God (eg God is a singularity at the beginning of time) or the 'ever-future' God (eg God is something that Humanity/Life can attain)) - it's a disbelief in the premise that processes can occur without a constant and continual divine presence and, perhaps, the threat that this represents to the much-practised belief system that God can be accessed.

I don't really understand the hoo-hah - the fundamental philospical step was to recognise that there was a creation, and this great leap of consciousness was written down in the Bible (and other great works). It's not like any discipline has ever moved away from that assertion, just tried to detail it.

It's taken a long time and a lot of wars to secularise the state and 'privatise' religion to organisations and individuals. I'd prefer to keep this system.
on Aug 17, 2005

Brad, good job with this post, and for once we completely agree on something.  First off, the Bible discounts the kind of Intelligent Design that has been thrown around in previous posts on this thread.  The only "fiddlin" that God did with Evolution, from the biblical perspective, is to create everything.  Now assuming that's true, Evolution is not disproven, or even said to be wrong. 

Societies evolve, for instance.  The Roman Empire "evolved" from a group of huts on a hill to an Empire that spanned most of Europe. 

Evolution simply means change.  The Theory of Evolution simply states that life changes to adapt to new situations.  Those who claim that this theory are wrong should realize that if Humanity had not adapted to their situation we probably would have been wiped out by cold, famine, heat, and disease over the millennia.

As for gravity, I'd just like to say when Galileo Galilei said that gravity existed and that two objects of different weights fall at the same rate, he was kicked out of the catholic church.  It wasn't until the catholics had lost their monopoly on christianity that this tenent of scientific fact was generally accepted.



And also, apparently the world was created on October 22, 4004 B.C. at three o'clock in the afternoon.
Edit: This is in no way an attempt to hijack the thread, but I've been reading through the back issues, and was wondering how the bankruptcy thing turned out Brad.
on Aug 17, 2005
Excellent blog, Brad. Link

on Aug 20, 2005
Someone beat me to the Onion link ... One wonders where they got the idea for THAT article
on Aug 24, 2005
"Intelligent Gravitation" Heh. Good one, Brad!

Now that you bought that up,I wonder how long before someone finds something like that in the bible.

Execellent article, and I pretty much agree to all points in it. After all, for it to be a scienfic theory, it has to have a way for people to disprove it. Suppose I said that all life is supported by invisiable vapor that can't be detected by anything at all, is that a scienfic theory? No. It's not testable. Same as ID. "Someone did it!" just don't cut it.

Gravity is still a very mysterous force for us humans. We basically know nearly nothing about it other than its effects.

Once again, great article. *still laughing on "Intelligent Gravitation"*
on Sep 27, 2005
Someone started a discussion about Intelligent Design vs. gravity elsewhere, and this article IMMEDIATELY came to mind. *linked*

Thanks for the insight Brad.
on Oct 01, 2005
I personally don't believe ID should be taught in a science class.

The only problem I have with how evolution is presented in schools is that macroevolution is often presented as fact instead of as a theory along with the evidence which supports the theory.

Despite the evidence said to support the idea of macroevolution, it is NOT a proven fact and shouldn't be taught as such.

While I personally believe in ID, I am intellectually honest enough to admit that evolution, possibly even macroevolution, could play a role in it. Or macroevolution could simply be an erroneous conclusion drawn from misinterpretation of available evidence.

At present, science is far more adept with observing, quantifying, and explaining currently occuring physical processes than in dealing with things from the distant past. Any time one must deal with far past events or processes it must be done with limited evidence and a great deal of conjecture which obviously leaves a great deal of room for error.

Who knows? Perhaps in the end we will discover that none of us had it right.
on Oct 11, 2005

Just read http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 

The timing of their article (just a few days after this) does make me wonder if we inspired them.

on Oct 15, 2005
LMAO, leave it to The Onion.
on Nov 20, 2007

4 Pages1 2 3 4