Distrust of Science, part II

Dr. Barry Starr Post on Apr 02, 2007 by
Topics: Biology, Engineering, Partners
Print Friendly Print Get a PDF version of this webpage PDF

Share:

Last blog I talked about some of the reasons scientists are to blame for the public’s distrust of science. This week I want to look at what all of this means in the context of a concrete example–evolution. In the near future, I'll talk about this topic with regard to genetically modified organisms

In both cases it is the public's misunderstanding of how science works and what science is that can lead to a growing distrust of scientists. And of course scientists aren’t blameless. Both examples also show how scientists have made the situation worse.

First off, evolution. It is important to start out by saying what evolution is. Evolution is simply the best scientifically testable model to explain a bunch of data about the world.

There is a whole lot of data out there that shows that the Earth is 4 or 5 billion years old. That species have come and gone over time. That species adapt to their environment and that these adaptations are passed down to their offspring through DNA.

Then there is the fossil record that shows the transition of one species into another. And the DNA evidence that shows that relationship. And a whole lot more.

All of this data cries out for a theory to explain it. And evolution does a terrific job.

In fact, it explains the data so well that almost no scientist disputes it. Nearly all life scientists use the backdrop of evolution to help plan and interpret their experiments.

And yet in a study from a couple of years ago, over half of Americans reject evolution. This is mind boggling.

It is like thinking the evidence is inconclusive that the Earth is round. Or that other stars have planets around them. So why do so few Americans accept that the evidence is that compelling?

Largely because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. But that explanation doesn’t help partly because I asked the wrong question. A better question might be, "Given that the evolution is the only scientifically testable theory that explains all of the data, why do people think they can refute it? Or think that the evidence for evolution is not strong?"

A big reason is a lack of understanding about what science is. Science is not a belief. Scientists don't believe in evolution like most people believe in God.

If a better model came around that could explain the data, scientists would drop evolution and use the new model. And believe me, some young hotshot scientist somewhere would love to become famous by showing that evolution is wrong.

Of course not any model will do. Anyone can propose an idea. To work, the theory would have to make predictions that you can test with experimentation. Evolution does this.

No other model out there does. Creationism certainly does not. Nor does Intelligent Design.

Only evolution makes testable predictions. And these predictions lead to new experiments that can lead to changes in the details about how evolution works.

This is another area where the public often misunderstands science. Scientific theories are not written in stone. They are not like religious beliefs. A theory is modified to fit new data.

This isn't wishy-washyism at its worst. This is just how science works. Scientists do not know everything and so propose theories based on the data they have. New data can change a theory. Or more rarely, a new theory can be proposed to replace the old one.

But with the huge body of data that supports evolution, it is very unlikely there will be a smoking gun that causes us to replace it with a new theory. There would need to be a lot of new data to support some other model. And there isn't any.

Another misconception is that a current theory has to explain everything right now. And if it can't, then the whole theory is bunk.

Again, this isn't how science works. If there is some data that the current theory of evolution can't explain, scientists will modify the theory so that it fits the data. Or do experiments or find evidence that explains the data.

This often happens with the fossil record. Someone will show a gap in the record and say that because of the gap, all of evolution is wrong. Of course this ignores the mountains of other data that do support the theory. And scientists often then find fossils that fill in the gap and so people opposed to evolution look for new gaps.

In other words, you don’t get rid of the whole theory because some data doesn't fit. No more than we got rid of Christianity when Galileo saw moons orbiting Jupiter.

Of course, scientists shoulder some of the blame too. As I wrote last blog, scientists don't tend to be the best communicators. So you get a lawyer or a clergyman whose job it is to talk against a scientist whose job it is to do science. Guess which one sounds the most convincing?

But science isn't American Idol. Or Yahoo Answers. The audience doesn't get to pick who the winner is or what the best answer is based on who has the best sound bite.

The best answer is the one that fits the data and is testable. And that is evolution.

I think a bigger problem has to do with the misuse of science by some scientists. I don't mean the handful who claim that other theories do a better job of explaining the data (although this sows the seeds of distrust as well).

A bigger problem is scientists who use evolution as a weapon against God. Some scientists claim that evolution shows there is no God. This is, of course, rubbish.

But when religious people hear this kind of talk, they naturally turn against evolution. After all, if evolution is proof that there is no God and I believe there is one, then evolution is bunk. It is important to state that evolution has nothing to do with God.

But evolution is real. Which means believers in a Judeo-Christian God will eventually need to incorporate it into their religion. And many, many believers are doing that right now.

More interviews with scientists about evolution
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/pov_atkins/index.html

A great website about evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

If people evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=150

Dr. Barry Starr is a Geneticist-in-Residence at The Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose, CA.

Tags: , , ,
Print Friendly Print Get a PDF version of this webpage PDF

Share:

  • James Collins

    If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they need do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, because today they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about the contents of the so-called 'simple' cell.

    After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago, 'according to the evolutionists,' and having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely the evolutionists scientists of today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

    If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

    Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

    Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

    Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

  • Bob Newgard

    There are some words that should not be used when describing science: "belief", "faith" and especially "truth".

    Popularizers of science do a disservice when they equate the process of science with a search for truth. "Truth" implies a final explanation. This denies the essence of science, which is a never-ending process for finding better explanations for observed facts. Also, "truth" is a word that has deep meaning in the context of religion; using it in the context of science may be interpreted as an attempt to usurp the place of religion in our society.

    With regards to "belief" and "faith", these are also inappropriate for describing science. A better term would be "confidence", used with "high", "low" or other qualifiers. This usage implies the readiness to entertain contradictory evidence that is so important to the process of science.

    This may be a simplistic prescription, but I always cringe when I hear science described with words of faith.

  • Barry Starr

    I wholeheartedly agree Bob and I try really hard not to include those words when I talk about science. Scientists don't believe in a theory. They think that the data supporting a theory is compelling. New data might make it more or less compelling. That's all, nothing more and nothing less.

  • Barry Starr

    You bring up an interesting point James but I think it is unfair to call the creation of life in a lab simple. This is something that originally took a billion years over wildly changing conditions. And we aren't sure what those conditions were. The process also had a whole planet to work with.

    To condense all of that into a single lab experiment would be amazing and incredibly difficult. Setting that up as the standard that proves or disproves evolution is a bit unfair and ignores all of the other evidence.

    Out of curiosity, let's say an intelligent designer created the first single celled life form (I am not saying that it did–this is just conjecture). Would you find the evidence compelling that life has changed over the past hundreds of millions of years? That species have come and gone over that time?

  • Kyle Dawson

    Regarding the statement that a majority of Americans reject evolution: I always wonder how the question is phrased in this survey. Do you have any idea?

    I ask this because Americans actually have a better understanding of the principles of both science and evolution than almost anyone else in the world (I believe the Swiss or Swedish have us beat, that's about it). I was surprised to hear this, but it's been explained by our broad requirements in college education. As opposed to many other countries, where education becomes very specialized by the time a person is applying to university, our college-educated must fulfill both science and humanity requirements.

    Ask an American about yearly flu vaccines, the bird flu virus, AIDS, endangered species, extinction, mules, border collies and chihuahuas, and they'll give an explanation that calls upon the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Ask that same American if humans evolved from another species, and they'll flatly deny the possibility.

    I think the real issue isn't belief in evolution, but it's the belief that evolution applies to humans. It seems that the majority of Americans consider the human existence to lie outside of the natural realm, and reject evolution because it takes humans off of their pedestal.

    In the end, scientists take the rational approach to the problem, and that is where we fail. The issue is purely emotional. Take for example the comments from James Collins. Scientists have nearly passed his test, with cloning as just one example. However, there is no amount of proof that will ever convince a true fundamentalist. Eventually, scientists will accomplish the "simple" task of reconstructing DNA and a functioning organism from scratch and James will simply redefine his criteria and continue to refute the entire theory. Why? Because to consider humans in the same context as chimpanzees and bacteria is to call into question our inherent morality.

    I would love to know how science can address this emotional tie to a religious origin of human life. Maybe we should try to convince some of those national church leaders that fundamentalists so admire?

  • http://murkythoughts.blogspot.com/ MT

    Like Darwin I think "evolution" misses the point and misleads. We're talking about common descent. Also I reserve the right to use biology and other sciences to argue against religion, and not only against specific claims about the real world that religious spokespeople may make (e.g. "the Earth is only 5,000 years old"), but also against feeling that we have any grounds to hypothesize a supernatural explanation for anything ever. Hopefully the science I'll be able bring to bear someday will be some high-quality social science, because religions are social. So is science, the data shows that the science is epistemologically a more reliable social phenomenon.

  • http://murkythoughts.blogspot.com/ MT

    "So is science, BUT the data shows" I meant.