Re: Student perceptions re evolution

From: Terry M. Gray (grayt@lamar.colostate.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 14:00:51 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Willingham: "Re: Student perceptions re evolution"

    Not to be exclusive and recognizing that we're not a large number
    here, it might be interesting to poll the Ph.D.'s in the life
    sciences on this list to see how many of them believe that biological
    evolution is a well established theory--perhaps asking the question
    in the form stated in Howard's original post.

    In your judgment, is biological evolution a well established theory? Yes or No

    If you want to participate, please send me
    (grayt@lamar.colostate.edu) your Ph.D. institution, graduation year,
    major/department and your unqualified answer. I want life
    scientists--no geologists (unless you're a paleontologist) and no
    cosmologists, astronomers, physicists (unless you're an exobiologist
    or biophysicist). No M.D.'s unless you're an MD/PhD with the Ph.D. in
    the life sciences.

    You get the drift, right?

    TG

    >I would be willing to bet it might be because the idea that a
    >"higher power" waved a magic wand and it all occured is easier to
    >understand than all the intricacies and "theories" of evolution.
    >
    >I can say that even after hanging around on this list for (I think)
    >over a year (maybe two) now and reading a good many (I'd say nearly
    >all) posts on the subject, I'm still not convinced about anything
    >one way or the other. I believe more than anything that I don't know
    >and I really don't have time to find out unless I want to get a
    >major in biology instead of my current goal, which is *not* going to
    >happen since the only reason I would be doing it would be to answer
    >that one question (possibly) and even then I can't be 100% certain I
    >would be convinced 100%.
    >
    >I'd say that most people can't understand it and it seems that the
    >"experts" are even divided on the subject; do the scientists on this
    >list agree on a majority of the same things? Has anyone ever done a
    >poll of this lists members to see how many of them even agree on any
    >aspect? You would have to break it all down and not just make it
    >like "do you believe that we evolved?" you would have to specify how
    >we evolved, what part was natural selection, etc... "what and how"
    >and see how many on this list answer the same way. I would be
    >willing to bet that the answers would be all over the place, no
    >wonder why poeple aren't accepting the thoeries as fact, "which are
    >the facts?" whose (which) truth would you want them to believe?
    >See, maybe you guys (and gals) can believe things without having all
    >the problems worked out, most people can't believe things unless
    >they are neat, complete, with all the i's dotted and all the t's
    >crossed and they have to understand what it is they are believing,
    >I've heard scientists say they don't understand their own theories,
    >but they work on paper or in science or mathematically. Most people
    >cannot "believe" anything they cannot come close to understanding
    >(especially if trusted scientists cannot agree) and I'm sorry but
    >evolution is one of those, there is so much that seems to the lay
    >person as "grasping at straws" it looks like a humanists (or
    >scientists, which to a lot of Christians are one in the same)
    >fantasy instead of an actual "scientific fact".
    >
    >My opinion is that until you can all agree, yourselves, on
    >everything from what happened (and prove it) to how it happened (and
    >back it up with facts) most people who don't have the time or the
    >education will just let it go into one ear and out the other. I
    >know, I know the YEC's have no "proof" but that's because they hide
    >behind hocus pocus and that is what makes it work, whenever they get
    >backed into a corner they say God did it with a special creative
    >stroke of his hand, people can believe that because they already
    >believe God is mysterious, he does miracles and he started all this
    >anyway (not to mention that the Genesis account seems to support
    >that process) so it's no leap at all for them to believe that if
    >they cannot understand it it was God's supernatural doing. But
    >science on the other hand, is a study of facts and of proof, and
    >evolution is science's baby, so they need facts and proof in order
    >to buy it, plus they need to see at least a majority of actual
    >scientists buying it also.
    >
    >I hope I'm making some sense.
    >
    >Sondra
    >
    >>From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
    >>To: gmurphy@raex.com, jwburgeson@juno.com
    >>CC: hvantill@chartermi.net, ASA@calvin.edu
    >>Subject: Re: Student perceptions re evolution
    >>Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:27:13 +0000
    >>
    >>As I understand it, the question put to the students wasn't whether they
    >>>accepted evolution but what percentage of academic biologists
    >>>accept it. The 2 are, of
    >>>course, related - those who don't want to think evolution is true
    >>>would like to believe
    >>>that "real scientists" agree with them.
    >>
    >>-Coming out of high school, I had absolutely no quarrel with
    >>evolution theory (what little I knew.) I was very eager to learn
    >>about science in high school, but learned very little about
    >>evolution. I also had little exposure to christian teachings at
    >>the time, so most of the influence on my understanding was directly
    >>from classroom teachings. Thus in answering such a question, I
    >>would have been unfamiliar with what professors thought of
    >>evolution (having never considered the question and not being
    >>exposed to their views at all- given poor textbooks) and would also
    >>have had very little idea of what importance such an issue had. It
    >>is doubtful I would have answered 90-100%.
    >>
    >>> No magic solution here but 2 suggestions - 1 that I've long
    >>>harped on & another
    >>>prompted by Howard's post.
    >>> 1) No headway will be made among conservative Christians who
    >>>reject evolution
    >>>unless one can convince them that a person can accept evolution
    >>>without abandoning the
    >>>traditional Christian faith.
    >>> 2) To the extent that evolution is identified in the popular
    >>>mind with dogmatic
    >>>atheists like Dawkins, it's possible for anti-evolutionists to
    >>>portray his whole
    >>>position - including his insistence on the scientific correctness
    >>>of evolution - as
    >>>extreme & therefore an aberration. We need to get before the
    >>>public as many examples as
    >>>possible of evolutionary scientists who don't have extreme
    >>>anti-religious views, some of
    >>>whom (though not necessarily all) should be Christians.
    >>
    >>I couldn't have thought of anything better. I am preparing a
    >>seminar on Science, Faith and Evolution for our church body and
    >>have been thinking deeply on the primary issue that I'd like to
    >>convey. For me, it isn't to go around and set certain facts into
    >>people's brains, i.e. go on a campaign to convince everyone that
    >>the earth is billions of years old. I have no reason for this if
    >>it could cause my brother to lose his faith or stumble, see also
    >>Romans 14. (Soap Box: My opinion is that those of you who have
    >>decided that evolution is true would be better suited to pursue an
    >>attitude of weaker/stronger brother towards young earth people
    >>rather than the mockery/hostile approach often expressed here.)
    >>The primary goal is to understand the nature of scientific fact and
    >>how it is interpreted, and to understand the relationship between
    >>science and faith not as a war of conflict but as complimentary but
    >>not completely overlapping sources of truth. I have been exposed
    >>to people who are personally conflicted about the existence of
    >>dinosaurs and it greatly astounds/troubles me. In my opinion, the
    >>real source of the problem is the nature of Christian truth. Most
    >>folks want their doubts completely dismembered and the way to do
    >>that is to believe in a set of completely inerrant principles that
    >>cannot be questioned from the Resurrection to a young earth. Thus
    >>every statement of faith is given equal footing and challenging any
    >>of it can challenge the veracity of the rest of it (is this the
    >>offspring of Howard's troublesome observation of "biblidolatry?".)
    >>I think conveying some kind of philosophy of knowledge, our
    >>infallible understanding, and our attempt to understand ultimate
    >>truth (something like Platonic forms) are key principles to help
    >>Christians open their minds to the possibilities wrt origins, and
    >>feel secure about the unknown.
    >>
    >>Josh
    >>
    >>_________________________________________________________________
    >>Chat privately with Bon Jovi, Seal, Bow Wow, or Mary J Blige using
    >>MSN Messenger!
    >>http://www5.msnmessenger-download.com/imastar/default.aspx
    >>
    >
    >_________________________________________________________________
    ><b>Help protect your PC:</b> Get a free online virus scan at
    >McAfee.com.
    >http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

    -- 
    _________________
    Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
    Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
    Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
    grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
    phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 14:02:25 EDT