debate-points, science-and-religionAs a layman I simply do not have the knowledge to explain the theory of evolution. I accept the basic idea of course, but what I know about the subject could be written in about three paragraphs - and I don’t understand any of the technical terms. Ask me a tricky question about DNA or RNA, and all I can give you is a blank stare.
It is up to the theist to prove that god exists, but many theists try to avoid that responsibility by asking the atheist to explain the theory of evolution. Then, if the atheist fails, the theist will declare victory by default: “You can’t explain how life evolved, therefore god must have created it.” It’s a silly argument, but I haven’t figured a way around it.
At the moment I just admit my ignorance, and explain that the tactic used by the theist is not designed to find the truth about evolution, but to avoid the task of proving god’s existence. I point out that it is not an either/or situation; that my inability to explain evolution does not “prove” god, but usually I am the only one convinced - and the theist never feels obligated to provide evidence for a deity.
Is there another way to make the theist feel obligated to provide that evidence?
"Before you read the answer proper, in short:"
"The answer proper – advice to the original poster who asked the question, and those who would like to avoid defending the theory of evolution"
In closing,
1 if you are lazy enough, here:
I think of the creation versus evolution argument as this: IF you believe in God, which is a greater demonstration of his/her power: that man was created in a day, or that God put a plan in motion eons ago that cause things to change over many millennia in order to eventually create the person that is you?
To specifically address your question: avoid explaining evolution by instead suggesting that evolution is the better measure of whether God exists than simple creation. Ask why they believe in a God that doesn’t have the ability to create via evolution. That will hopefully turn the scientific conversation back to a philosophical one.
The Discovery Institute’s “wedge strategy” is intended to sow doubt in the theory of evolution, and it’s surprisingly blunt in its official statements. By using phrases like “it’s just a theory” and related lines, they seek to create a controversy where no controversy actually exists where it matters.
The ancient Greeks, even though they didn’t use the word “evolution” postulated that we, as humans, must be descended from stronger animals, otherwise we wouldn’t exist as we do today in such weak form (especially as babies…)
If someone pushes you to try to defend evolution, your response shouldn’t be a defense of evolution. It should be a questioning of why, of all scientific theories and understandings that contradict or otherwise say something different from what’s in the bible, theists seem to hone in on evolution and not other scientific disciplines. That’s the real controversy behind evolution.
You are bound to get one of two answers to this question, and neither one of them will make the theist look good:
– the first is a strawman argument. The way some theists talk about evolution, they demonstrate that they don’t really understand the way it works, and their perceptions would be more appropriately applied to their god and not to evolution. Just point that out to them and be done with it.
– the second is the argument from personal incredulity. This actually ties in with the strawman argument in some capacity, but I consider it completely independent of it. The answer to this one is to point out that personal incredulity swings both ways and there are some much more outrageous claims in the bible (or Qur’an, Gita, or any other religious tome) than anything in the Origin of the Species. The difference, of course, is that those religious texts were made up and were attempts to explain what at the time had no other explanation. Sometimes they do it quite creatively, too. But they’re still made up.
“Neither you, nor the Bible can explain how it can be that God has always been, therefore God has never been.”
If you ask them to justify their belief in the existence of a god, and they reply by asking you to explain the theory of evolution, call them out on the non sequitur they just committed. If they want you to learn more about the theory of evolution, that’s fine, but it’s a separate discussion.
Often these conversations are hinged on a presumption that things not proven true are false, and things not proven false are true. Point out to them that their own fallacious logic leads to the refutation of their world view, and that this double standard isn’t acceptable:
Their logic is:
However, if we apply the same logic to the existence of god, we get:
This at least makes both theories amusingly incorrect.
Ask your antagonist to tell you what they understand the Theory of Evolution to be.
If their explanation sounds like something Ray Comfort would say, you can say that, although you don’t have all the details, it doesn’t sound right, but you’d be happy to go to the library with them so that you could both learn more about exactly what the Theory of Evolution is.
If their answer sounds better than you could explain, ask them why they need you to explain it to them seeing as they know so much already.
"Wait, wut? Even Catholic Church has been accepting evolution and its explanations for a long time!"
This may make questioner think he is wrong, and it'd be better for him to read more about evolution.
The following are some interesting parts from Catholic Church and evolution article on Wikipedia:
"...new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis." — John Paul II, 1996 (Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution).
...
A five-day conference held in March 2009 by the Pontifical University in Rome, marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species, generally confirmed the lack of conflict between evolutionary theory and Catholic theology, and the rejection of Intelligent Design by Catholic scholars (Richard Owen report, London Times Online, accessed May 26, 2009).
Your theoretical questioner is arguing in bad faith: they are implying that their entire acceptance of evolution by natural selection rests on your ability to explain it, where in reality of course they are a-priori committed to rejecting it (or else they’d go and read some books about it rather than dumping all the responsibility for their education on one layperson). I think you would be perfectly justified in simply walking away from such a conversation - it’s rude and unsociable to start a conversation on a lie, and nobody, whatever their religious beliefs, has a duty to put up with rudeness.
Simply ask the person who is asking you to explain evolution to themselves explain how a nuclear facility works. If they cant give you a step by step explanation then point out to them that the nuclear plants still exist with or with out their understanding the finer points and if they bothered to take the time to learn they might one day understand it.
If the person can give you an overview of the process ask for more and more detail.
Don’t bother. They don’t care about your answer anyway.
Just explain that evolution is a mathematical process (though without using mathematical language), and what they are concerned with is a biological flavor of it.
If you accept that there is variation in traits, traits that cause variation in reproductive success in those with the traits, and that those traits are heritable, evolution will occur. That is individuals with the traits that are best suited for their environment will produce the most copies of themselves, iteratively. This results in evolution.
If you can show that such a process exists for biological entities, then you have shown that evolution is necessarily present. Though it wasn’t always phrased in this way, this is how people could study evolution for decades without knowing how DNA worked. At the very least, it would seem difficult to get them to not admit that animals are at least currently engaged in evolutionary processes, and that can be a stepping stone to a fuller understanding of the natural history of life.
If they do disagree with it, you can just point out that traits do seem to be various, seem to have various effects on reproductive success, and do seem to be heritable, and you can ask which of these three premises they quarrel with. This shifts the burden of proof onto them, just as you desired.
You don’t need to understand it in much detail. The main line of defense is scientific method itself, not the particular theory.
Scientific method bases theories on observation and experimentation. The theory explains what is observed and can be tested via experimentation.
Scientific theories come and go. Even top scientists don’t have a perfect understanding of the exact details of Evolution. For example recent studies have shown that its not just DNA that cause traits to be inherited, but the “packaging” around the DNA. This is known as epigenetics, and its relatively new. Another more common example is to look how Relativity changed physics.
But this is the beauty of Science. Willingness to adapt and change. If a new theory comes along that’s better, fits observation and experiment better, is useful for predictions, and simpler than previous theories, then chances are the Scientific community will embrace it.
You don’t need to prove that Evolution is the correct theory. Its just one that has an awful lot of good evidence and experiment supporting it.
Do not explain the theory of evolution. It’s not the theory. It’s the fact. So good could they ask you to explain the theory of gravity or the theory of metallurgy. You simply don’t have the knowledge to explain anything, but resist against calling evolution the theory.
The argument you’ve described is based on a logical fallacy, the Argument ad logicam. Basically, just because you can’t explain what evolution is, doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.
I suggest you inform yourself on Evolution so that you can explain it in a simple and correct manner. It’s not that difficult (first there were bacteria, then they glommed together, and eventually there were platypuses, as evidenced by the fossil record). I’m sure everyone here can recommend 3 or 4 Dawkins books.
The other alternative is not to get in arguments where you’re sitting there with the other guy, and you’re both saying, “I don’t have to prove my theory, you have to prove YOUR theory!” That’s like the intellectual equivalent of a girly slap fight.
Ever see Good Will Hunting? The bar scene where he intellectually wipes the floor with the other guy? He did it by knowing both sides of the argument. The theist/atheist debate is thousands of years old. If you’re going to go out and start a debate with someone, and you don’t want to end up looking stupid, you need to prepare yourself.
Even on top of the informed theists, there are special kinds of assholes out there (and I am definitely one of them) who will happily argue either side, and who have been arguing this stuff for decades. If you’re going to argue it, know what you’re talking about.
If you take evolution to be a statement of faith, then you place it on common ground with the theists's statement of faith that an all-powerful god was the creator or designer of what we see. It allows you and the theist to lay down your weapons on the issue at the same time. Neither one of you has to prove anything, defend anything, or poke holes in the other's arguments.
This kind of stance will run afoul with the majority scientists who have spent their careers studying small organisms as they evolve, because it unearths a core belief that said organisms couldn't have come to where they are any other way except by evolution.
However, just as scientists rely on evidence to support their claims (as they should), they can't give answers to questions like the following:
In other words, if you don't want to be arguing back and forth with someone about purported events that no one will ever be able to reconstruct or observe, then don't try.
I don’t think it’s your job to defend Evolution. There are many good books and resources on the web that do that anyway. No-one would expect you to defend other areas requiring specialist knowledge (i.e. General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics etc.) simply from the top of your head.
If they are genuinely that interested in understanding Evolution then point them in the right direction of good books or web based resources and be done with it.
It is not your job to defend the theory of evolution to anyone. Point them to sites like the TalkOrigins archive or The Panda's Thumb and say, "they explain it much better than I can; have fun." It sounds like this is your current strategy, so all I can say is keep it up. If you're genuinely interested in evolution itself, there's plenty of material out there, but if not, don't sweat it.
It doesn't matter how much or how little you read up on the theory; no matter how knowledgable you are, there will always be one more "Oh yeah? Well, what about <completely unrelated strawman/half-truth/garbled concept/etc.>?" (a.k.a. the Gish Gallop). I wasted enough time over at talk.origins to know that this is one debate that's simply not worth the effort to get into. There's a reason actual evolutionary biologists refuse to get into debates with Big-C Creationists; there is absolutely no upside and plenty of downside.
Most Big-C Creationists have such a poor understanding of evolution that most of it falls into the "not even wrong" category. They're so misinformed that pretty much any question they ask is going to be a complete WTF (any time they use the word "entropy", you can be pretty certain that they're coming from a position of not just ignorance, but anti-knowledge). The difference between them and you is that you understand your knowledge is incomplete, and that you are not qualified to argue the point.
Don’t explain it at all. Tell them you trust the scientific process that developed it as it is the same process that ultimately brought you the internet, transistors and modern medicine. You can’t logically (I know religion has very little logic) argue that the same scientific process that allows your mobile phone to work could fail on evolution so badly. They might be different subjects but are developed using the same process.
What’s funny about this question is that it could have just as easily been asked the other way round, by a theist. They, like you, have finite resources and the vast majority don’t have the time to invest in learning all the intricacies of what is - as you note - a vast subject area, crossing multiple disciplines.
So generally they’ll learn a couple of ultra-specific or superficial mini-factoids, mostly for use ‘defensively’ to buttress their own faith, or - for the more belligerent - to ‘go after’ atheists with. (Having perused this site, it would appear that some atheists are guilty of a similar superficial knowledge of ‘the enemy’).
Now, to answer your question, I’d first like to know why? What is the purpose of this discussion? Is it just a session of ‘my theory is bigger than yours’ (and to prove it I’m going to bludgeon you to death with it)? Is there any desire on either side to really understand or learn from the other? If not, leave it, walk away, you’re wasting your time, and theirs.
However, if the other person is genuinely interested and wants to know, then - if you’re prepared to invest the time - you really ought to say “I honestly don’t know, but I’ll try and find out and get back to you”. That way you show that you’re taking his respectful question seriously, and that respect will hopefully grow with time.
That said, for your own sake you perhaps need to start answering the question “how come I accept evolution if I can’t really explain or understand it?” That sounds surprisingly like taking something on faith, which - as an atheist - is a luxury you can’t afford.
Proving that God exists is very logical. Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.