New response to the "evolution is just a theory" canard
Posted on: August 15, 2008 - 4:16pm
Offline
New response to the "evolution is just a theory" canard
OK, so your theist friend says "well, evolution is just a theory, it hasn't been proven."
Response:
"You're right, evolution IS just a theory. But look at what you have, you have a myth! A theory is what you get when you look at the evidence and you USE the evidence to create a story that explains the evidence and that makes predictions about what other evidence you might find.
A myth is a story that someone made up with NO EVIDENCE at all! People who believe in myths like to fish around for evidence that supports their myth, and then they systematically ignore all evidence that refutes their myth.
I have a theory. You have a myth!"
I like this tactic, because it disarms them and puts you on the offensive. What do you guys think?
- Login to post comments
Well, to be honest, I cringed a little. It's not that your point is invalid. It's completely true. However, it glosses over the stronger point that we have a theory to explain a fact. They have a myth to explain a... what? Their myth doesn't actually explain anything.
Let me put it another way. Evolution does exist. It is as certain as gravity or nuclear fission. Our theory attempts to explain the phenomenon which most certainly does take place. The Jesus/God story, on the other hand, doesn't actually explain anything. It just tells a story about something. So God created man, did he? Well what is God? Jesus came to save man, did he? Well, what's the evidence that we needed to be saved from anything?
The point is, religion makes up ad hoc propositions about life -- that it was intelligently designed, that it has a higher purpose, that humans are depraved and sinful (what is sin?!), that it is striving towards a goal, etc. There's no scientific evidence for any of this, and yet religion goes on to make up explanations for things which need none because they have not been demonstrated to be true!
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I guess they would insist that the God 'hypothesis' "explains" existence....
Except of course that introducing a totally incomprehensible entity which is both logically incoherent and vastly more inexplicable actually only makes the whole thing even more incomprehensible, rather than actually explaining anything, in any meaningful sense of 'explain'.
God concept has negative explanatory power - it introduces vastly more stuff to explain....
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I think both you and Hamby are glossing over an even stronger point. "Evolution is only a theory" contains a fallacy of equivocation.
The statement "Evolution is only a theory" is what we would call a partial enthymeme. An enthymeme is an incomplete syllogism, it is missing one of the premises (usually the conditional). This one is a partial enthymeme because it is has both an unstated implicit co-premise and an unstated conclusion. The true syllogism would look like this:
P1: Evolution is only a theory (minor, stated)
P2: If Evolution is only a theory, there is no reason to think it is true (major, implied)
C: Therefore, there is no reason to think evolution is true
The two uses of theory are emboldened because the fallacy of equivocation is contained therein. The former is a scientific term used to describe a model which explains observations. The latter is a layman's term meaning a hunch or guess.
I often employ this example when instructing people on logical reasoning, to demonstrate how problematic enthymemes are, especially when they crop up in politics and rhetoric. One of the best techniques that anyone can employ in their evaluation of any argument is to find all the enthymemes, underline them, list all the unstated co-premises, and examine them. Usually, the co-premise will be omitted because it is obvious. Sometimes, however, the co-premise will be ommited (as in this case) because it is dubious. Enthymemes are to formal logic what cancer is to cells. Don't use them.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
ooooh... good point DG. I'm somewhat ashamed for missing this obvious enthymeme. To put it into a more layman-digestible format, Susac, you could say something like this:
"First, evolution is a fact, and we have a theory to describe it. (continue with my rant above) Second, the theory of evolution is just like any other theory in science -- that is, it's not just a random guess. It's a predictive model that can be tested against reality, and because its predictions are so staggeringly accurate, medical science would be nothing today without it."
Then, you can bring in yet another fact. The current theory of evolution is not only supported by mountains of evidence -- literally -- you could build a mountain with all the recorded observations of evolutionary theory. Not only that, but it is the ONLY THEORY THAT explains the data. There isn't a scientific rival to evolution. Not one. So, what you're left with is, as I said, a myth that doesn't even explain anything, or a monumentally supported theory of a known event that doesn't have even one scientific alternative.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
"evolution is just a theory" ? shezz ....
People who say that, obviously don't understand basic science, so to "cut the chase", I might say "religions are just theory's, and just look at all them many wild religious different conflicting theory's. Oh wow, "god done it" ... Well how? Why worship and how? Erect an idol ???
But in science, the truly dedicated to answering how .... all such seriously dedicated hands on scientists totally agree that evolution is indisputable fact. Evolution is a LAW of basic science physics. The only reason it is called a "theory" is because the exact precise details contain theory's. All life is obviously evolution.
All religion is no more than surrender to wishful dogmatic thinking ....
Ahh sorry, I forgot my main point, maybe later I will recall , anyway, go Susac.
Atheism Books.
Good discussion. I really like the "evolution is a fact and we have a theory to describe it" line.
The problem with all these completely accurate and well thought-out claims is that they pack little emotional punch. I think that while most of the arguments listed here are much better than mine, I also think that mine has the advantage of emotional appeal that makes a much bigger impact on a faith-head. I assume that if they knew how to reason, they would not be faith-heads.
My intention on calling them out on their mythology is two fold:
First, it uses the word Myth. This is an emotionally loaded word, because they can't tell fantasy from reality, so by calling their beliefs a myth it puts them on the defensive right out of the box.
Second, it describes THEIR behavior - hunting around and cherry-picking evidence is a standard tactic of these guys. So it's calling them out on this.
I think that you guys have much stronger arguments than the one I posted, no question. I am working on the assumption that the person I am talking to doesn't know the difference between an a-priory argument and a rational argument. Given that this is the sort of person that you are talking to, what is the best tactic for educating them on the difference, so that you can (hopefully) get them thinking in new directions?
Susac, you've hit on a dilemma that's been near and dear to me for several years now. Whenever a theist is reduced to an emotionally appealing argument, they will stand by it, and will even get really mad at you when you attack it. After all, this is about personal beliefs, and happiness, and love, and meaning in life, and how dare you presume to talk about facts when it's about something so emotional?!?!
However, when you use an emotionally appealing argument on them, they're going to catch it, and then they're going to use it against you. "Well, if you have such a great argument, why didn't you just say it? Why did you feel like you needed to manipulate my emotions?"
I'm not saying that I think you shouldn't try to use theists' emotions to your advantage. I think it's going to take some really creative work, though. In my opinion, the trick is to find emotionally appealing ways to use the strongest arguments possible. I run into this dilemma all the time when talking about human nature. As a matter of fact, when you and I had our extended discussion of morality, I was having to work against your emotional attachment to your own concept of morality, and even though my presentation of morality was thorough and meticulously scientific, it was very, very difficult for you to accept....
1) Morality is just a box for descriptions of human interactions.
2) There is no such thing as absolute right or wrong.
3) Morality is subjective, but not arbitrary.
4) Morality is based upon selfish individual motives which genes mold with emotions into a pattern of behavior that is ultimately beneficial on average to the species, and the happiness of the individual is secondary.
Yeah... try selling that to people who just came back from a rousing sermon about a personal Buddy Jesus who will smite your enemies, bring peace on earth, and help you get a better job so you don't have to work with that bitch in accounting anymore.
The thing is, even though all that stuff about morality is true, it's not packaged in the most sexy way possible. Depending on the audience, I can pick out pieces of that and tell the whole truth while making it sexier:
"You're absolutely right. Morality didn't just spring out of nowhere. It's absolutely real, and it's the result of millions of years of nature figuring out just what's best for our species, and instilling it into us with powerful emotions that make our lives have purpose and meaning."
That, in my opinion, is a lot more emotionally appealing than saying, "Morality is a phenotypic expression of the survival of genes which encouraged non-zero sum reciprocal altruism in the most effective ways." Even so, they're both saying exactly the same thing, and I'm not leaving anything out of the statement in either case. I'm just finding more emotionally appealing ways to say it to people who will respond to emotion.
I approve totally. I don't even use the words "faith" or "religion" when talking about Christianity anymore. I refuse to let them dictate the terms of the discussion. When I speak of it, I call it a myth. When I speak of Jesus, I speak of the legendary figure or mythological figure (with deference to Rook's valid point about the difference between a myth and a legend). Susac, I'm sure you've read some of the research on the power of repetition, right? So you know that just by saying a thing enough times, you can convince some people that it's true. (After all, there really were WMD's in Iraq. 911!!!! Al Qaeda!!!!! WMD!!!! Go America!!!!!)
It's going to be a long battle because two things are needed. Many Christians simply don't know a damn thing about the scientific description of life, and if they don't have any alternative, they're going to stick with religion. However, just presenting an alternative won't do it either. They have to be made to look foolish in their ignorance AND be respectfully taught about the alternative. That's a tall order.
Well, I've essentially answered this. I think in the context of a full discussion, you need to be prepared to give concise, accurate, and sexy explanations of the scientific perspective. Whether this happens before or after you call them out on the weakness of their position is probably a matter of style. I do think that both things are necessary. So, to make it into bullet points:
* Present accurate (if incomplete) emotionally appealing versions of the scientific perspective
* Expose inadequacies and inconsistencies in the theist's perspective.
* Put them on the defensive. Don't let them use their terminology. Refuse to "respect" their word choices. Call things what they really are.
* Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yeah, good advice there Hamby.
I view these sorts of discussions as honing my "bag of tricks" when discussing worldviews with theists. Frankly I wish I had more theists to talk to, just so I can try out different tactics, because I'm sure that all of these arguements work differently on different people. I suppose I could go hunt up some prosthelatizers, but I like to think I have a life.
Aye, there's the rub.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
COOL- LIVE now > Susac, here, click play
http://www.live365.com/stations/kyrs?site=pro
it should be laid out a bit better than this and RSS should have it somewhere on the menu to the left IMO but here is a definition of theory.
A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.
And one of my favorites! Music Theory! which can be used to predict the outcome of a composition before you even write it!
I like the way you are going. However, allow me to offer a minor divergence.
At the beginning of the 21st century, it may please us to think that we are quite close to answering the last great questions of science. Let me take the standard model of particle physics as an example. It has made many testable predictions in the past and as far as we have been able to test them, every single one has come up all aces. As theories go, it has turned out to be one of the great ones.
So why are creationists dismissive of the theory of evolution then? One answer might be that not all theories as good as the standard model. The basic idea of a theory is not to show a fact but to offer a proposed explanation for certain observations and to make testable predictions. Then the predictions need to be tested to see if the theory is sound. If the predictions are confirmed, then the theory is considered as quite strong. However, if the predictions fail, then the theory is a weak one (really it was weak before the testing phase, we just did not have proof of the weakness).
Over time, many theories have been offered up for consideration and have been supported by some often very sound reasoning but in the end, they failed when they came under critical scrutiny. For example, gravity is also “just a theory” but one that is rather harder to deny than evolution. However, before Galileo decided to investigate the subject, remember that there was a previous theory of gravity posited by Aristotle. How the idea that heavy stuff falls faster then light stuff could stand un-investigated for centuries is beyond me but it did.
So I tend to think that the impetus for speaking of evolution in the dismissive sense of “just a theory” is that not all theories stand the test of time. By focusing on the theoretical nature of evolution, the creationists make the connection that theories can and many times have been replaced. By the faulty logic which they employ, evolution could be replaced one day as well.
However, the major fault in that line of thought is that old theories are not simply replaced. They are shown to have been weak to begin with and they are replaced by better theories. In that evolution is already known to not be a weak theory and that creation is not even a theory, creationists are not even plowing uphill on this. They might as well be trying to plow a vertical cliff face.
=