The Consequences of the Theory of Evolution

[Bill Mattocks]

With regard to belief or or lack of belief in evolution, what does it matter? It either happens or it does not, regardless of who believes in it.

Although I will confess to being perplexed by a guy I met once who was a brilliant software engineer and firmly convinced that the Grand Canyon was carved by nature in just 6,000 years, since that's how old the world is (literal creation believer), I am also somewhat bemused by those who are worried over what others believe with regard to evolution. So they don't believe in it. So what?

 

[Carol]

Exactly my thoughts, Bill. I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" in my thyroid meds or my electric lights. I accept the science behind them, certainly. But it is not a belief.

 

[fangjian]

, I am also somewhat bemused by those who are worried over what others believe with regard to evolution. So they don't believe in it. So what?

I am also a product of Natural Selection. As a social animal, it is important how others believe and behave, as it influences my life and my children's lives. I care what people in my community believe, as it effects their behavior. My survival, the survival of my kids, and the survival of my species is dependent on this. It is important that as many of us as possible has a grasp of reality ( as close to it as is possible).

It is highly probable that Homo sapiens will eventually meet their possible extinction event. I like to think that what I do while I am living, and spreading science education, may help us win. in the end. And our descendants will live for new adventures.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am also a product of Natural Selection. As a social animal, it is important how others believe and behave, as it influences my life and my children's lives. I care what people in my community believe, as it effects their behavior. My survival, the survival of my kids, and the survival of my species is dependent on this. It is important that as many of us as possible has a grasp of reality ( as close to it as is possible).

That interferes with my freedoms. Your right to order society as you wish ends with your desire to tell me how to live, believe, or think, so long as my actions don't infringe on your rights either.

As much as I think people who believe in literal creation and reject any concept analogous to gradual change in organisms over time are wrong, I also accept their right to believe as they wish as long as we leave each other in peace. If they want creationism taught in schools, I have a problem with that. If they believe it and teach it to their kids in their home, it's none of my business. Or yours.

It has been my observation that certain enlightened minds feel not only a strong desire but an actual obligation enforce their concepts of truth on the rest of us poor deluded creatures. It's contrary to the concepts of freedom, and that gets my back up.

It is highly probable that Homo sapiens will eventually meet their possible extinction event. I like to think that what I do while I am living, and spreading science education, may help us win. in the end. And our descendants will live for new adventures.

Apres moi, le deluge.

 

[fangjian]

That interferes with my freedoms.

How does me expressing my opinion, violate your freedoms?

Your right to order society as you wish ends with your desire to tell me how to live, believe, or think, so long as my actions don't infringe on your rights either.

I'm not ordering anything. I'm just expressing my opinion.

As much as I think people who believe in literal creation and reject any concept analogous to gradual change in organisms over time are wrong, I also accept their right to believe as they wish as long as we leave each other in peace. If they want creationism taught in schools, I have a problem with that. If they believe it and teach it to their kids in their home, it's none of my business. Or yours.

Of course they have a right to believe as they wish. It's not about that.

It has been my observation that certain enlightened minds feel not only a strong desire but an actual obligation enforce their concepts of truth on the rest of us poor deluded creatures. It's contrary to the concepts of freedom, and that gets my back up.

So you don't care if 99% of humanity excepts Evolution by NS or the Heliocentric Model or 'Whether the Holocaust happened'. I understand. But I do care. And that doesn't infringe on any rights

 

[Bill Mattocks]

How does me expressing my opinion, violate your freedoms?

I'm not ordering anything. I'm just expressing my opinion.

Of course they have a right to believe as they wish. It's not about that.

So you don't care if 99% of humanity excepts Evolution by NS or the Heliocentric Model or 'Whether the Holocaust happened'. I understand. But I do care. And that doesn't infringe on any rights

You said, "As a social animal, it is important how others believe and behave..."

This social animal prefers to stick to his knitting as regards how others believe and behave, so long as they don't infringe on my rights.

Freedom is not conducive to survival over the long term. Oh well. Like I said, when I'm gone, I could not possibly care less what happens after that.

 

[fangjian]

, I could not possibly care less what happens after that.

Until you have one a victory for mankind, be ashamed to die. -H. Mann

 

[fangjian]

Assume 20 years from now that everyone believes the Theory of Evolution is true. What consequences do you think this will have on our society or life in general?

If most people excepted and understood the ToE, there would be major scientific breakthroughs in all fields. The most impacted would be Biology, since the ToE is the foundation for it all, and Chemistry, I guess. If that is true, breakthroughs in medicine would follow.

Also other fields. The ToE raises your consciousness to how nature works in general, as well. Physics, Cosmology, Economics etc.

Also fields that seem very distant from Bio.

ie. I'm not so sure I remember the Calculus I was working on earlier this year. However the mere fact of doing it, understanding it is beneficial for your mind. It will help you later, even if you forget it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Until you have one a victory for mankind, be ashamed to die. -H. Mann

Ashamed or proud, die I will; and so will you. How would I care if others mark me a heel or a hero after my consciousness no longer exists? Therefore, I must conclude that exhortations to be mindful of the impact my choices will have on future generations are mere attempts to shame me into behaving as others think I should. Non servium.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If most people excepted and understood the ToE, there would be major scientific breakthroughs in all fields. The most impacted would be Biology, since the ToE is the foundation for it all, and Chemistry, I guess. If that is true, breakthroughs in medicine would follow.

Also other fields. The ToE raises your consciousness to how nature works in general, as well. Physics, Cosmology, Economics etc.

Also fields that seem very distant from Bio.

ie. I'm not so sure I remember the Calculus I was working on earlier this year. However the mere fact of doing it, understanding it is beneficial for your mind. It will help you later, even if you forget it.

Once upon a time, scientists believed that rocks did not, could not, fall from the sky. Simple country folk who had seen and reported seeing glowing rocks falling from the sky were judged mad, and locked in bedlam for their own good.

The world, it seems, would have been a much better place if people would have simply chosen to believe the truth - the truth was that rocks DID NOT fall from the sky.

But time passed and fashions changed and science eventually discovered that rocks did and do fall from the sky. No apology was issued, no damages repaired. It was simply declared that if one did NOT believe that rocks fall from the sky, one was damaging the fabric of society. If only people would believe the truth, the world would be a much better place. The truth was that rocks DID fall from the sky.

Science today believes in evolution. And so do I. But alas, it is the folly of every age that science refuses to accept that having once been wrong, it could be wrong now. Those previous scientists were babbling fools, ignorant savages. We scientists of today have the answers, and what's more, we can prove them as well.

The world would be a much better place if people only believed the truth, that evolution exists.

Until tomorrow, perhaps.

For the record, I doubt that evolution is much in error. I also doubt that we have all the answers. And I believe that very few people on this planet can actually explain how evolution is supposed to work; perhaps less than a million scientists out of how many billion people. The rest simply believe (or don't believe) and their belief is no different than religious faith. They simply put their trust in men and women who wear white lab coats instead of funny hats and collars.

The world would be a much better place if we all just believed the truth. The problem is, the truth is subject to change. Good scientists know that. Believers always think they have a corner on the truth market - religious believers and science believers. They're often wrong. So I reject them utterly.

Your science will be different tomorrow than it was today. And yet you think I should place my faith in it as fact today. I think not.

 

[fangjian]

Ashamed or proud, die I will; and so will you. How would I care if others mark me a heel or a hero after my consciousness no longer exists? Therefore, I must conclude that exhortations to be mindful of the impact my choices will have on future generations are mere attempts to shame me into behaving as others think I should. Non servium.

Hahaha I wrote 'one a victory' instead of 'won a victory'. FAIL


After your consciousness no longer exists, of course you wont care. Our ego is not the point.

Also I understand why most Americans don't care about the future of Homo sapien. I bet somewhere between 70-95% of Americans believe that they have an immortal 'soul'. If we all just have souls, then who cares if a cure for HIV is possible or if we can develop sophisticated space travel?

The rest simply believe (or don't believe) and their belief is no different than religious faith. They simply put their trust in men and women who wear white lab coats instead of funny hats and collars.

Yes the 'faith in' or 'trust' is similar. But one of those has predictive value, the other so far, does not. I doubt there are many people who can explain to me 'how we know' that those white dots in our night sky are actually 'suns'. We've come very far with this 'silly faith' in science.

 

[elder999]

you don't care if 99% of humanity excepts Evolution by NS or the Heliocentric Model or 'Whether the Holocaust happened'. I understand. But I do care. And that doesn't infringe on any rights

It's worht pointing out here that the Catholic Church has survived 400 odd years of the heliocentric model. They've been wrong before. They'll.be wrong again. They'll carry on.
p

 

[cdunn]

The basic problem with rejecting theories that fit observable facts is one of societal and technological consequences.

Evolution and development theory are the fundamental underpinnings of biology, and therefore also the "deep magic" of medicine and biology. When do they matter in your life? It matters when your doctor gives you an antibiotic for a viral sinus infection, and it alters your body to favor the growth of MRSA and C. difficile. It matters when Joe Ordinary the farmer accidently breeds a weed that chokes out fields by over using Roundup. It matters when we overspray DDT in Africa, and malaria rates go up because it stopped working. And it matters when policy makers, who are not scientists, go, "Nope, no evolution, can't happen!" and make malinformed decisions based on that idea.

The most important thing we gather from the sciences is not 'Oh, that's the way the world works', it is the ability to make predictions based on observed patterns. Even if the prediction is not perfect, it can still be 'good enough'. For example, there are issues with our understanding of relativity and quantum physics; in their current forms they cannot both be true. Yet, GPS, nuclear power, and moon landings. And much of what we learn from evolutionary theory both informs us of useful paths in biology, agriculture, and medicine, and warns of pitfalls that we can fall into. (Oh hi thar Lysenko!)

Do I personally care if some guy in the South Appalachians accepts that the theory of evolution works? Ideologically, no. Am I concerned with the consequences of his vote and actions? Well, they do affect the society I live in.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

After your consciousness no longer exists, of course you wont care. Our ego is not the point.

Also I understand why most Americans don't care about the future of Homo sapien. I bet somewhere between 70-95% of Americans believe that they have an immortal 'soul'. If we all just have souls, then who cares if a cure for HIV is possible or if we can develop sophisticated space travel?

Position 1: Immortal souls do not exist. Life is an accident, the universe is an accident. There is no point to anything other than the pleasure we can derive for ourselves while we live.

Position 2: Immortal souls do exist. Life is not an accident, the universe is not an accident, but a planned creation by a superior being. There is a point to life beyond what we can experience while we live.

In only one of those two scenarios does it make sense to plan for a future beyond our own existence, to attempt to ensure the survival of our species and our environment, and to behave in a selfless manner. Hint: it's not Position 1.

I am not saying that atheists and believers in scientific explanation for all things are not capable of selfless acts or of thinking beyond their own generation; they clearly are and do. I am saying that they have no compelling rational argument for doing so, other than they want to. A perfectly good reason, by the way, but not a perfectly good reason for imposing it on others.

If there is nothing beyond death, and the universe is an accident, then there is exactly zero point to anything, save our own enjoyment, since we find ourselves here and capable of enjoyment. Any other consideration is meaningless.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Do I personally care if some guy in the South Appalachians accepts that the theory of evolution works? Ideologically, no. Am I concerned with the consequences of his vote and actions? Well, they do affect the society I live in.

That's the point. In a society that gives each an equal vote, you're perfectly right to care about the ignorant vote and the effect it has on the society you live in, but you are not perfectly right to do anything about it. He as as much right to be ignorant as you do to be enlightened. If one embraces rule by the people, one embraces the notion that the people are largely clueless and vote their emotions and grubby desires. It's a contradiction to want a logical society and a free one.

And as an aside, I again introduce the point that science is absolutely correct today. Tomorrow, those things that were absolutely correct may be seen as absolutely wrong. Embracing science also means embracing error. You can be no more sure that your facts about antibiotics and MRSA are correct than the fellow who thinks they are God's judgment on a wicked society. You just *think* you can.

Last note. I repeat, once again, that all believers in science utterly reject the notion that today's science might not represent the final word. All science of the past that was proven wrong was not of course science and we won't talk about that anymore. All science of today is utterly, completely, factual, and there is zero chance it could be wrong, so let's build our society based on these things that are absolutely true. These believers are as blind and shuttered to the reality of history as the religious are to the reality of science. I won't trade rule by mindless drones who watch wrestling and dancing with celebrities on TV for science sycophants who feel that facts must rule society and they are in possession of them. Science could use a little humility before it desires to rule.

 

[elder999]

And as an aside, I again introduce the point that science is absolutely correct today. Tomorrow, those things that were absolutely correct may be seen as absolutely wrong. Embracing science also means embracing error. You can be no more sure that your facts about antibiotics and MRSA are correct than the fellow who thinks they are God's judgment on a wicked society. You just *think* you can.

Last note. I repeat, once again, that all believers in science utterly reject the notion that today's science might not represent the final word. All science of the past that was proven wrong was not of course science and we won't talk about that anymore. All science of today is utterly, completely, factual, and there is zero chance it could be wrong, so let's build our society based on these things that are absolutely true. These believers are as blind and shuttered to the reality of history as the religious are to the reality of science. I won't trade rule by mindless drones who watch wrestling and dancing with celebrities on TV for science sycophants who feel that facts must rule society and they are in possession of them. Science could use a little humility before it desires to rule.

As a scientist, I have to disagree, somewhat.

As I've posted before, science doesn't give us answers:it gives us models, and scientists-the ones that do good science, anyway-recognize that the models change.Thus, scientific believers in scince-that is to say, scientists-know for a fact that today's science doesn't represent the final word-that there is no "final word."

 

[fangjian]

Position 1: Immortal souls do not exist. Life is an accident, the universe is an accident. There is no point to anything other than the pleasure we can derive for ourselves while we live.

Position 2: Immortal souls do exist. Life is not an accident, the universe is not an accident, but a planned creation by a superior being. There is a point to life beyond what we can experience while we live.

In only one of those two scenarios does it make sense to plan for a future beyond our own existence, to attempt to ensure the survival of our species and our environment, and to behave in a selfless manner. Hint: it's not Position 1.

There are, as I'm sure you know, more positions than that. But, no matter.

If there is nothing beyond death, and the universe is an accident, then there is exactly zero point to anything, save our own enjoyment, since we find ourselves here and capable of enjoyment. Any other consideration is meaningless.

What's the point in going out to the movies or going out on a date, if you know it won't last forever?

That's the point. In a society that gives each an equal vote, you're perfectly right to care about the ignorant vote and the effect it has on the society you live in, but you are not perfectly right to do anything about it. He as as much right to be ignorant as you do to be enlightened. If one embraces rule by the people, one embraces the notion that the people are largely clueless and vote their emotions and grubby desires. It's a contradiction to want a logical society and a free one.

This is not about 'rights'. Nobody here is saying we need to take away rights. Funny story. I was at a family function a couple months ago. My aunts come to me and say, " Hey what's with all of this stuff you posted on Facebook recently? What are you some kind of ATHEIST?" I responded calmly " Yeah" They immediately got very defensive and one said " OH YEAH? WELL I BELIEVE IN GOD!! " My response was calmly, "Cool". Then she said, " Well, it's my right to believe and it's your right not to. "

Why do people turn this into a rights issue? Why have you, Bill? None of us ever said that we need to have laws about excepting scientific knowledge. That would be catastrophic.

You can be no more sure that your facts about antibiotics and MRSA are correct than the fellow who thinks they are God's judgment on a wicked society. You just *think* you can.

Hahahaha

And as an aside, I again introduce the point that science is absolutely correct today. Tomorrow, those things that were absolutely correct may be seen as absolutely wrong. Embracing science also means embracing error.
Last note. I repeat, once again, that all believers in science utterly reject the notion that today's science might not represent the final word. All science of the past that was proven wrong was not of course science and we won't talk about that anymore. All science of today is utterly, completely, factual, and there is zero chance it could be wrong, so let's build our society based on these things that are absolutely true. These believers are as blind and shuttered to the reality of history as the religious are to the reality of science. I won't trade rule by mindless drones who watch wrestling and dancing with celebrities on TV for science sycophants who feel that facts must rule society and they are in possession of them. Science could use a little humility before it desires to rule.

Nobody says today's science is the final word. Science could use a little humility? Hahaha. There is nothing more humbling than learning about our universe. From the Observable Universe and beyond, all the way down to the Planck Length and the natural laws that made it possible for us to exist.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As a scientist, I have to disagree, somewhat.

As I've posted before, science doesn't give us answers:it gives us models, and scientists-the ones that do good science, anyway-recognize that the models change.Thus, scientific believers in scince-that is to say, scientists-know for a fact that today's science doesn't represent the final word-that there is no "final word."

That's scientists. Most people are not scientists. Most people exhibit belief in science. That is no different than belief in religion, magic, or the Easter Bunny; not that it isn't more often accurate belief, but that it is belief at all.

Most people do not understand magnetism. They understand the principles as they have been explained to them. If those principles turn out to be wrong, magnetism still works. But their belief was based on faith, not facts.

Science deals in theories and probabilities. People turn that into cold, hard, fact. Then they insist that others behave the way that favors their 'facts'. It is only the latter that I have a problem with.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There are, as I'm sure you know, more positions than that. But, no matter.

There are not. There either is or there is not life beyond physical death. One can parse one's answer in a variety of ways, but the question is binary; thus there are only two positions.

What's the point in going out to the movies or going out on a date, if you know it won't last forever?

Personal pleasure. I can take pleasure when I am alive. Once I am dead, nothing matters at that time. Thus, taking action on the basis that it will give pleasure when I am gone is illogical; I won't be able to enjoy it.

This is not about 'rights'. Nobody here is saying we need to take away rights. Funny story. I was at a family function a couple months ago. My aunts come to me and say, " Hey what's with all of this stuff you posted on Facebook recently? What are you some kind of ATHEIST?" I responded calmly " Yeah" They immediately got very defensive and one said " OH YEAH? WELL I BELIEVE IN GOD!! " My response was calmly, "Cool". Then she said, " Well, it's my right to believe and it's your right not to. "

Of course it is about rights. Not the right to believe, but the right to act in a manner consistent with those beliefs. To live in a free society in which everyone's vote counts, the ignorant must have the same voice as the educated. Democracy is inconsistent with a logical science-based society. Global warming? As long as a majority don't believe in it, and choose not to vote based on those issues, then that's the end of it. The end result; potential destruction of human life, doesn't matter if you want freedom. Choose one.

Why do people turn this into a rights issue? Why have you, Bill? None of us ever said that we need to have laws about excepting scientific knowledge. That would be catastrophic.

Because a simple statement, such as "people ought to think X" becomes "people ought to be made to believe X," historically speaking. One can substitute any value for X, from belief in God to belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming. And proof of this is seen in our laws and proposed laws on a daily basis. People have their beliefs; then they attempt to inflict them on others. One seldom stops at personal belief. I point no fingers - we're all guilty.

 

[Carol]

Should we not post high voltage warnings because that invokes the theory of electricity?