Mailbag: Evolution vs. Creationism
Subject: Evolution
As the phenomena of evolution to complex organisms has never been witnessed and is intrinsially unreproducible, it is clearly not a science and not given to scientific experimentation. It is therefore a religion.
Interestingly, much the same could be said for current statements about plate tectonics or what goes on in stars. Who has been to the center of the earth? Who has seen what goes on inside a star? No one has - but we are able to make informed statements about the relevant events based upon what we do witness. The fact of the matter is, the characteristics of "unreproducible" and "never been witnessed" are not the characteristics of a religion. For Yaakov to state that they are suggests that he doesn't know what a religion is. Which seems odd, if he is the observant Jew he claimed elsewhere to be.
Also, for Yaakov to suggest that much of geology, astronomy, etc. are "not science" also suggests that he doesn't know what science is. So perhaps it is easy for him to confuse the two subjects?
Evolution is touted by 99% of its proponets (excluding yourself) as evidence that no Supreme Being created you and me, and ergo there is in essence no one to whom to answer. By straddling the fence, and stating that the two are compatible does a great disservice to those that do believe in a Divine force in the world and makes the need for the whole theory of evolution a waste of everyone's valuable time. (I see that your E-mail address negates the existence of a Supreme Being).
Actually, many people believe that evolution is the means which a "Divine Force" created the diversity of life. Yaakov does their religion a disservice by claiming that that isn't possible. Unfortunately, there are a great man people who follow religions that are so conservative and narrow that they simply cannot fathom another human being following the same religion in a different manner. There are theists who are so consumed by their own narrow versions of theism that they cannot believe that another person could believe in God and something like evolution. Such people do, however, exist - quite a few, in fact.
I am American Board Certified in both Internal Medicine and General Surgery. Although I became an observant Jew at age 18 and rejected Harvard and Yale to study the Torah, it was not until I was a practicing surgeon for 8 years that I began to appreciate the unlimited intelligence intrinsic in the body that develops from one cell, a fertilized egg, with each and every step of all bodily functions super highly intricate and complex. Although I am a graduate of Albert Einstein Medical School in New York, this appreciation came only after listening for one straight year to tapes from an elderly Brookly Rabbi who devotes himself to saying things that our Western culture-inculcated minds are not accustomed to hear. We've gotton all a good wash.
A licensed surgeon who doesn't understand science? How sad... I wish I knew where Yaakov practiced medicine so that I could be sure to avoid being treated by him. I couldn't bear the idea of putting my life in the hands of a doctor who sincerely doesn't realize that science isn't limited to just the directly and personally observable. I also couldn't bear putting my life in the hands of a doctor whose ignorance of biology is so deep that he doesn't accept evolution.
I don' know what a true "science" is, but it is important to differentiate between theories and things that can be proven through experimentation, i.e., reproducible results.
Yes, I agree that Yaakov has no idea what genuine science is - a really pitiful state for a doctor to be in. How on earth did he manage to become American Board Certified? Perhaps prospective doctors should be expected to know something about science and biology generally rather than just medicine in particular.
Proof through experimentation is indeed one facet of science, no question about it. At the same time, astronomy is a science even though no one has reproduced a star in a laboratory. Plate Tectonics is a science even though no one has ever visited the center of the planet. Key to science is testing ideas through observation. Sometimes that occurs in the laboratory, sometimes in the field. Both are equally acceptable - in fact, the latter is often preferable.
Belief in a creator carries with it a price tag. The need to follow the Manufacturer's Instructions, not a popular product in Western society.
In Yaakov's case, I honestly believe that the "price tag" was the ability (or willingness) to use his basic reasoning faculties when it comes to matters involving both science and religion. He admits that he doesn't know what science is, yet he presumes to preach about how some scientific endeavors don't qualify as science. Why? Because they contradict his religious dogmas.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
It’s sad, I’ve got to say, but maybe not surprising that Yaakov doesn’t believe in evolution. Having met quite a few creationist doctors, and having taught evolution to several groups of pre-med students, I’ve come to the conclusion that they aren’t necessarily interested in science. A lot of premed students get frustrated when you ask them to think through the concepts and logic and implications of population genetics, and will often just say “Just tell me the answer! That’s all I need to know on the test. I’m not interested in why.”
I suspect that even very well educated surgeons are something akin to mechanics, rather than engineers. A mechanic could theoretically believe that a car is powered by little demons, and all the machinery of the car is a means of binding the demons, and the gasoline is like an offering of incense. He or she could still, theoretically, be a very succesful mechanic. An engineer who believed this, though, would inevitably be a failure.
The real danger here is that creationist surgeons or doctors, once they step outside a narrow field of physiological or anatomical practice will not appreciate the impact evolutionary problems have on the diseases they’re treating. Cancer is nothing more than unfettered evolution of lines of cells within the body. AIDS and bacterial resistance, and new flu strains all are evolutionary phenomena, and a doctor who deals with any of these health problems (opposed, say, to plugging a new heart into someone’s body) will of necessity need to understand evolutionary theory (which most don’t). This is, I think, why a lot of doctors were so slow to come to understand that bacteria could become resistant to penecillin, or why anti-cancer drugs can become ineffective.
A surprising many physicians fail to grasp the implications science’s basic tenets. I would be pleased to see About Atheism explore this theme and attempt to explain why some professionals hold certain superstition higher then their own experience.
I agree 100% with both Brad and Jackson. I have spoken with physicians who are “amazed” at how some god or other designed the body.
Once outside of the field where they learned enough to pass the test, people (physicians or others) demonstrate all too readily that they have never heard of epistemology or even the basics of the art or reasoning. The art of reasoning should be a required course for all college students, let alone professional schools such as medicine and law.
I,too, would very much like to see About Atheism explore this and attempt to explain why so many people hold superstition higher then their own experience.
The art of reasoning should be a required course for all college students, let alone professional schools such as medicine and law.
Hear, hear! Elementary school might not even be too early to start learning the basics of rational thought.
I,too, would very much like to see About Atheism explore this and attempt to explain why so many people hold superstition higher then their own experience.
It’s an odd phenomenon: otherwise highly intelligent people who hold beliefs for which they should know better. Michael Shermer (I think) did a book some time ago called “Why People Belive Weird Things.” I remember being somewhat disappointed by the book, as it did not really answer the question to my satisfaction.
Carl Sagan’s “Demon-Haunted World” was a great book, though IMHO it would’ve been better if the focus on UFO’s and E.T.’s were directed more toward religion and the supernatural in general.
I have some highly intelligent friends who nonetheless feel the need to occasionally forward me some urgent email which is quite obviously (to me) an urban legend. They are usually a bit embarrased when I supply them with a couple links easily disproving the legend, and yet a month or two later they do it again. So it’s of interest to me, what exactly the underlying reasons are that cause some silly beliefs to be able to bypass the intellectual abilities of our brains. Perhaps intelligence and rational thought are not the same?
I agree with you about Shermer’s book — it’s good, but not enough about the “why” that I expected from the title.