Biblical literalism, evolution and the role of terminology [split from Seven Little Words]

MaeZe · Dec 16, 2017

Roxxsmom said:
Very true.

And the distinction between objectively observable facts (like the effects of gravity, or the fact that life has changed over time and is changing around us today) and the theories that explain them is one thing that many people absolutely refuse* to understand, no matter how thoroughly and eloquently various scientists have been trying to explain this over the last 30-40 years since the serious move to re-incorporate a particular religious view into government and secular life first re-asserted itself in the US during the late 20th century.

The refusal to accept scientific (or any other kind of) data that is "inconvenient" to one's world view has moved far beyond the so-called religious right, though, and it is now being used by business interests to deny climate change etc. Heck, it's even being used to deny actions and events that are matters of public record.

* I say "refuse" because it's not that hard to understand, but it behooves certain interests to cover their ears and chant, "Lalalala, I can't hear you!"

My snappy comeback when people say that evolution is "only" a theory is to point out that the notion that microbes are responsible for communicable disease is also a theory, but would they want to eat in a restaurant where employees don't wash the dishes or their own hands, and oh by the way, how do they feel about people who don't cover their coughs or about sipping soda from the same can as someone with the flu?

I like that comeback. Often people will come back with, gravity is also only a theory.

We tend to think of issues like science denial as a knowledge deficit problem. Most of the time it is not a knowledge deficit, rather there are other barriers to said persons figuring out the real world.

It matters how we frame our arguments. If the evolution denier says evolution is only a theory, that person is misusing language to confirm their denial bias. A long explanation about the definition of scientific theory and/or hypotheses will only leave them yawning. I have long argued with my science-based friends

not to go that route.

But there is no reason to adopt imprecise language like referring to an evidence-based conclusion as a fact because it will surely come back to bite you on the ass if/when some 'fact' turns out not to be supported by some 'new' evidence.

When it comes to evolution, I often use the framing, 'overwhelming evidence supports evolution theory'.

Roxxsmom · Dec 16, 2017

MaeZe said:
When it comes to evolution, I often use the framing, 'overwhelming evidence supports evolution theory'.

Exactly this. And the observation made by Dobzhansky (a theologian as well as a biologist) that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.

Unless someone has finally come up with a falsifiable creationist explanation for why (as Haldane asked) God has such an inordinate fondness for beetles.

Of course, there's always the approach of making science more entertaining, as this guy does with videos like this one. Still, I'm guessing it's probably pretty hard to follow without at least some grounding in the underlying science.

I've noticed that one thing that has come up occasionally over the years with students is when one says that they really are impressed with the evidence, but they "can't" accept it because of their religion. Aside from the puzzling notion that one isn't allowed to choose a better religion in the US (a land where freedom of religion is part of our DNA), sometimes these students are wrong about their own faiths. I've had Roman Catholics tell me this, for instance, and members of other churches that don't deny evolution or forbid their followers from accepting it at all.

On an up note, I've had no students telling me things like this in the past few years. I've had none expressing skepticism about climate science either. Of course, I teach in CA. I'm sure it's different in some parts of the country. I also don't know if it's because more of them understand and accept the science vs it being a matter of more people in their late teens and early twenties are passively accepting these ideas because they think they are supposed to (or simply aren't invested enough in the issues to even debate them in class).

MaeZe · Dec 16, 2017

My apologies for being off topic:

Eugenie Scott has done some tremendous work in this field. She starts off in her classes (college) addressing the barrier evolution deniers have by using a continuum showing Bible literalists on the far end. She then asks her students where on the continuum they fall.

If they don't fall on the extreme end then they are allowing for some of the Bible to not be true. It all depends on where you fall on the continuum and if you can accept that some of the Biblical truths are metaphorical or whatever, then why not accept the science supporting evolution theory?

kikazaru · Dec 17, 2017

MaeZe said:
My apologies for being off topic:

Eugenie Scott has done some tremendous work in this field. She starts off in her classes (college) addressing the barrier evolution deniers have by using a continuum showing Bible literalists on the far end. She then asks her students where on the continuum they fall.

If they don't fall on the extreme end then they are allowing for some of the Bible to not be true. It all depends on where you fall on the continuum and if you can accept that some of the Biblical truths are metaphorical or whatever, then why not accept the science supporting evolution theory?

I'll veer off topic as well.

I'm not religious and I'm not Catholic, but I work for the Catholic school system here in Ontario. A few weeks ago we had a PD day where a priest came to talk about various things, and one of them included a discussion on how big the ark would have to be to include one of every animal and the logistics of locating and gathering them. The priest then told the audience that the story of Noah and the ark was most likely allegorical. An elderly woman (who is on the school board) was in the audience and she was utterly devastated. That she had gone all those years never questioning anything in the bible, and now a biblical authority figure was telling her something in there wasn't true, had really shaken her, and she went away wondering what else she believed was a lie.

Chris P · Dec 17, 2017

I too thought of George Carlin. I also am baffled at the logic of banning certain words. Of course some of the directives toward the EPA early on in the Trump admin prefigure this.

To join the derail, biblical literalism ignores not only historical history, it ignores the religious history of how the Bible was compiled from the existing works at the time. There are four canonical accounts of Jesus' life, two stories of creation, and many many other historical inconsistencies (lists of kings, descendants, etc.) that don't agree in their details. Of course the early church leaders recognized this, and included the books in the canon anyway. It's like they said "We don't know which one is historically accurate, but they are all spiritually accurate." Biblical literalism does more harm than good, because when the Bible doesn't stand up to science or archaeology people are more likely to either reject faith as a whole or more staunchly defend a flawed literal interpretation. All this does is either drive people away or cause more conflict that further drives people away. Religious instructors would do much more good by taking the difficult route of teaching people how to handle uncertainty and doubt as principled people than how to browbeat and shame dissenters.

Roxxsmom · Dec 17, 2017

I think a lot of priests and ministers avoid this rather awkward and uncomfortable topic altogether, so many of their members have no idea what their denomination really teaches on many matters. Like everyone else in our modern society, they often feel like they are in competition for a limited resource (in this case, faithful parishioners who attend most weeks and donate money to the congregation). If they offend even 10-15% of their regulars by reminding them that much of the Bible isn't even meant to be taken literally (not to mention that much has been mistranslated and misunderstood), their bottom line will suffer. Churches may be non profit, but they still need money to pay for their building and its maintenance, to pay utilities, and to pay the pastor and any employees who maintain the facility or take care of paperwork etc.

The approach to religion that was dominant in the 80s and beyond sure turned me off it. I know plenty of wonderful Christians and know there are still "liberal" denominations out there, but in my heart of hearts, I can't hear the words "God" or "Christian" without thinking of the likes of Falwell, the Moral Majority, and creationists. It's a visceral-level shudder. I also can't avoid thinking of the sexist, sex-negative, and homophobic teachings of so many religions.

I suspect what is really killing church attendance, though, is the same thing that's killing participation in many other not-monetarily profitable things that require one's physical presence, demand regular attendance, and enforce face-to-face social interaction. The internet is turning us into a nation (or world) of shut ins.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the word "fetus" is on the list because they want to CDC to refer to fetuses as "unborn babies" or something that will further reinforce the religious conviction that abortion is the same as murdering a neonate.

I'm surprised they included entitlement, though, as that's more often used by conservatives to excoriate people who receive social services via the government.

frimble3 · Dec 17, 2017

I have been doing bible study with two of Jehovah's Witnesses, as sort of a 'general knowledge' thing. (Okay, I'm stuck at home and bored.) We hit upon evolution in the early days, and they seem amenable to the whole thing, except for human beings. We seem to agree that when the Bible says 'Jehovah created the birds of the air, and the beasts of the field' they aren't enumerated, so he many not have individually created each and every separate species, but, by allowing them to 'be fruitful and multiply', he may have instilled a mechanism in them to allow for change based on local circumstances. Otherwise, why so many almost-identical sparrow-like birds? Or, as mentioned up-thread, beetles.
But, they are really hung up on humans being a special case. Created by Jehovah's own hand, in his image, etc. And, since there's been no complete skeletal record, or other clear line where 'now they're primates, now they're humans', we have agreed to disagree until more info comes in.
We may both be just nodding and smiling while considering the other side fools, but it keeps the conversation going.

Davy The First · Dec 17, 2017

Chris P said:
I too thought of George Carlin. I also am baffled at the logic of banning certain words. Of course some of the directives toward the EPA early on in the Trump admin prefigure this.

To join the derail, biblical literalism ignores not only historical history, it ignores the religious history of how the Bible was compiled from the existing works at the time. There are four canonical accounts of Jesus' life, two stories of creation, and many many other historical inconsistencies (lists of kings, descendants, etc.) that don't agree in their details. Of course the early church leaders recognized this, and included the books in the canon anyway. It's like they said "We don't know which one is historically accurate, but they are all spiritually accurate." Biblical literalism does more harm than good, because when the Bible doesn't stand up to science or archaeology people are more likely to either reject faith as a whole or more staunchly defend a flawed literal interpretation. All this does is either drive people away or cause more conflict that further drives people away. Religious instructors would do much more good by taking the difficult route of teaching people how to handle uncertainty and doubt as principled people than how to browbeat and shame dissenters.

And therein is the key - both cause and solution.

Literal interpretation removes 'doubt.' The misinterpretation of the meaning of 'doubt' is I feel, at the heart of the matter for literalness.

Uncertainty has the opportunity to be the foundation of faith. Instead, it's seen by those who are literal in interpretation, as the enemy.

Fear of ambiguity, paradox, and mysticism tend to go hand in hand, with fear of uncertainty.

And reason, when balanced against absolute certainty, aint go a snowball's chance in hell for those folks.

MaeZe · Dec 17, 2017

frimble3 said:
I have been doing bible study with two of Jehovah's Witnesses, as sort of a 'general knowledge' thing. (Okay, I'm stuck at home and bored.) We hit upon evolution in the early days, and they seem amenable to the whole thing, except for human beings. We seem to agree that when the Bible says 'Jehovah created the birds of the air, and the beasts of the field' they aren't enumerated, so he many not have individually created each and every separate species, but, by allowing them to 'be fruitful and multiply', he may have instilled a mechanism in them to allow for change based on local circumstances. Otherwise, why so many almost-identical sparrow-like birds? Or, as mentioned up-thread, beetles.
But, they are really hung up on humans being a special case. Created by Jehovah's own hand, in his image, etc. And, since there's been no complete skeletal record, or other clear line where 'now they're primates, now they're humans', we have agreed to disagree until more info comes in.
We may both be just nodding and smiling while considering the other side fools, but it keeps the conversation going.

It's also a tad behind in the science.

A decade or so ago there was a breakthrough in the field of genetic research decreasing lab costs to analyze genomes. Combined with bioinformatics, a whole new scientific field of computer programing to analyze the billions of nucleotides in a genome, the result was an explosion in genetic research. Anyone whose knowledge of biology preceded this explosion, unless they've been keeping up on the research, is going to be arguing evolution from a seriously outdated POV.

There is no longer a question of where the human genome fits in the tree of life (which is actually more of a bush).

Scientists have removed the gene for fetal development of a compound insect eye from a fruit fly and exchanged it for the related gene in a rabbit fetus. A normal animal eye developed. I'm sorry I can't link to the research because it's so old now it's hard to find it.

I have more fun stories like that one.

Roxxsmom · Dec 17, 2017

frimble3 said:
And, since there's been no complete skeletal record, or other clear line where 'now they're primates, now they're humans', we have agreed to disagree until more info comes in.

Humans are primates (and in terms of cladistics, we are also "apes," (though the group formerly known as the "great apes" is now called the hominids) and the fossil record demonstrating the progression from smaller brained to larger brained in the hominin tree is pretty darned good. There have been some discoveries (like Ardipethecus ramidus) that are filling in the gaps regarding the ancestry of the Australopithecus genus too.

MaeZe said:
Scientists have removed the gene for fetal development of a compound insect eye from a fruit fly and exchanged it for the related gene in a rabbit fetus. A normal animal eye developed. I'm sorry I can't link to the research because it's so old now it's hard to find it.

I have more fun stories like that one.

I think you are referring to Gehring's experiments where he was able to introduce a mouse-derived gene for eye formation into fruit fly embryos that carried the eyeless mutation, resulting in fruit flies that grew normal fruit fly eyes. This was consistent with the hypothesis that all animal eyes have evolved from a common ancestor that had this gene.

The discovery of the homeotic (such as Hox genes) revolutionized the study of evolution and developmental biology, and it finally gave scientists' understanding of where so-called evolutionary novelties (radical changes in body appearance between lineages) come from. As it turns out it's much easier for natural selection to tinker with slight variations in the same basic set of genes that organize body plans in the animal kingdom than it is to constantly reinvent developmental patterns and body organization from scratch. It explains why we can share so many of the same genes with other animals (over 98% with chimps) and still look so different.

In hindsight, it's a huge "duh!", since animal bodies tend to be made up of serially repeated parts that are modified differently in different lineages, but most great discoveries are "duh" in hindsight.

The thing that is really cool is that animals, including humans, often retain the genes to make structures we no longer have, because their expression is normally "turned off" by these master regulatory genes. As SJ Gould put it, "hen's teeth and horse's toes. He could have added "human tails" and "dolphin hindlimbs" as well.

I now have to link this really cool video from "acapella science."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydqReeTV_vk

Don't hate me if you can't get it out of your head. Much cooler than the original "despacito" song, imo.

And sorry to geek out. I know Maeze and the other biology types on the site know at least as much about this stuff as I do, but it's so amazing and fascinating I can't not talk about it.

And boy are we off topic now :O

To tie it back in, anyone want to start a betting pool for how long it is before the NSF gets a memo telling them they can't use the word "evolution" in budgetary documents?

AW Admin · Dec 17, 2017

I split this because while a tangent, it seems to me it deserves its own thread.

shortstorymachinist · Dec 17, 2017

Roxxsmom said:
he was able to introduce a mouse-derived gene for eye formation into fruit fly embryos that carried the eyeless mutation, resulting in fruit flies that grew normal fruit fly eyes.

hen's teeth

...can we make hens with teeth and call them velociraptors rebooted?

Brightdreamer · Dec 17, 2017

shortstorymachinist said:
...can we make hens with teeth and call them velociraptors rebooted?

Then we'd have to retire the phrase "rare as hens' teeth"...

There's a book on dinosaurs and "devo evo" (developmental evolution) called How to Build a Dinosaur (by Jack Horner) that speculates on the possibility of creating a chicken with dinosaurlike characteristics as a visual representation of the concept. Hypothetical so far, but kind of an interesting book, even if much of it doesn't talk about the "chickenosaurus," as he calls it.

frimble3 · Dec 17, 2017

I'd like to thank everyone for the information. I have to admit that my study of science, in any organized way, pretty much ended at high school (I was an Arts major). I see stuff on the news or magazines, but it's not like I go looking for it. As to evolution, I know it happened, and is still happening, but it's sort of a background thing, much like gravity.

Albedo · Dec 17, 2017

shortstorymachinist said:
...can we make hens with teeth and call them velociraptors rebooted?

Do we get a vote? Because I vote we put teeth on lammergeiers first. Why go for a chicken-sized velociraptor when you can have a velociraptor-sized velociraptor that can fly, eats bones and small children, and looks like it erupted fully formed from a metal album cover? Nothing can possibly go wrong with this idea.

Roxxsmom · Dec 17, 2017

Albedo said:
Do we get a vote? Because I vote we put teeth on lammergeiers first. Why go for a chicken-sized velociraptor when you can have a velociraptor-sized velociraptor that can fly, eats bones and small children, and looks like it erupted fully formed from a metal album cover? Nothing can possibly go wrong with this idea.

Those things already look kind of like dinosaurs.

Seriously, birds don't need teeth. They're already perfectly good at attacking us.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/world/what-in-the-world/australia-magpie-season.html?_r=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ttacks-in-oregon-park/?utm_term=.a7bdbba7a8be

MaeZe · Dec 17, 2017

shortstorymachinist said:
...can we make hens with teeth and call them velociraptors rebooted?

Yes, actually.

Turns out we have a lot of genes that are simply turned off rather than gone.

'Chickenosaurus': paleontologist aims to re-create the dinosaur in every chicken

Horner has a plan to turn on turned-off genes in chickens plus splice in some new ones.

But it turns out chicken not only have genes for teeth, they also have genes for scales and claws.

Horner's TED talk is fun: Where are the baby dinosaurs

In a spellbinding talk, paleontologist Jack Horner tells the story of how iconoclastic thinking revealed a shocking secret about some of our most beloved dinosaurs.

Or for the written summary if you don't have 20 minutes at the moment:
WA Po: Paleontologist Jack Horner is hard at work trying to turn a chicken into a dinosaur

A genome does not evolve in a tidy fashion. Old genes are not always discarded when they fall out of use. For example, there may be a whole host of genes that direct the growth and movement of a dinosaur’s arm and fingers. If another gene evolved to fuse some of those bones into a wing during embryonic development, many of those arm-and-finger genes would be pushed to the sidelines. But the potential for a dinosaur arm could still be there. If you can identify the newer gene that causes bone fusion and disrupt its expression, those sidelined genes may suddenly start producing arms.

Horner posits that three primary engineering tasks will lead him from a conventional chicken to something resembling a miniature velociraptor (a small predator that became famous in “Jurassic Park”): creation of a long tail; the development of a toothed, beakless head; and the fashioning of arms with fingers and claws instead of wings.

The toothy snout is already here. At his lab at Harvard Medical School, Matthew Harris has made chicken embryos that express ancient genes for the growth of conical, crocodile-like teeth.

Turning genes on and off, coding for proteins and protein folding is the next generation medical science, or rather one could also say it's the current generation of medical research.

AW Admin · Dec 17, 2017

shortstorymachinist said:
...can we make hens with teeth and call them velociraptors rebooted?

Regarding hens with teeth:

Contrary to the well-known phrase, 'As rare as hens' teeth,' the researchers say they have found a naturally occurring mutant chicken called Talpid that has a complete set of ivories.

The team, based at the Universities of Manchester and Wisconsin, have also managed to induce teeth growth in normal chickens -- activating genes that have lain dormant for 80 million years.

See Hen's Teeth Not So Rare After All

MaeZe · Dec 17, 2017

Albedo said:
Do we get a vote? Because I vote we put teeth on lammergeiers first. Why go for a chicken-sized velociraptor when you can have a velociraptor-sized velociraptor that can fly, eats bones and small children, and looks like it erupted fully formed from a metal album cover? Nothing can possibly go wrong with this idea.

Chickens happen to make easier to manage lab rats. :tongue

From the WA Po article:

Chickens may not seem like the most obvious modern bird to convert into a dinosaur. Ostriches are the most primitive surviving species of bird. Sandhill cranes have been largely unchanged for about 10 million years. The chicks of a bird called a hoatzin have dinosaur-like claws on their fingertips that they use to climb trees before they are fledged. But ostriches, sandhill cranes and hoatzins would each be challenging to work with in a laboratory. Chickens have the advantage of being highly domesticated and easy to care for at low cost.

MaeZe · Dec 17, 2017

AW Admin said:
Regarding hens with teeth:

See Hen's Teeth Not So Rare After All

And given there are fish with human-like teeth it's not much of a stretch to understand how mammals evolved mammal teeth.

The Tree of Life Web Project makes a great resource for any writer or curious human.

MaeZe · Dec 17, 2017

Here's another fun story if you'll will forgive me for not hunting up a link which would bore some of you with technical crap anyway: Some microorganisms when exposed to a toxin like an antibiotic, turn off their DNA repair mechanisms to allow mutation rates to speed up.

If you multiply with the rapidity of a single celled life form, it doesn't matter if you break a lot of eggs when making your new omelet, as long as one of them is successful.

For organisms like ourselves, we don't have that luxury. But what we do have is a lot of leeway so those mutations (the ones you don't see, not the ones that are devastating) don't cause us problems. We have variability built into our genome so when we are exposed to a toxin, like the plague, survivors are built into the population already.

Chris P · Dec 17, 2017

frimble3 said:
But, they are really hung up on humans being a special case. Created by Jehovah's own hand, in his image, etc. And, since there's been no complete skeletal record, or other clear line where 'now they're primates, now they're humans', we have agreed to disagree until more info comes in.
We may both be just nodding and smiling while considering the other side fools, but it keeps the conversation going.

I would like to ask them how close of a connection would satisfy them? Even if we dug up everyone who ever lived and lined them up each in front of their mother going all the way back, there would still be someone saying "Not good enough!"

I can't remember who it was, perhaps Jared Diamond in The Third Chimpazee or Stephen Jay Gould in Wonderful Life, or someone else entirely, said that expecting to find every "missing link" completely misses how evolution works. Evolution progresses on variations from previous forms. For example, once the fish line was established, it could only produce other types of fishes. It was not possible, nor necessary for the theory to be true, that fishes would for a time have tried to grow fur, only to have that adaptation be selected out. Anyone demanding fur-bearing fishes to "prove" evolution would always win their argument. Ironically, if a furry fish missing link did exist that would argue against evolution because there is no way for the fish line to develop characteristics of mammals. (Leaving convergent evolution out of it--marine mammals, for instance--which is easily explained through evolutionary theory.)

The Otter · Dec 17, 2017

Chris P said:
I can't remember who it was, perhaps Jared Diamond in The Third Chimpazee or Stephen Jay Gould in Wonderful Life, or someone else entirely, said that expecting to find every "missing link" completely misses how evolution works.

A lot of people seem to fundamentally misunderstand the whole concept. I've heard people ask things like, "If humans evolved from apes, why aren't there apes evolving into humans right now?" And I've never been sure how to respond because there are several levels on which the question itself doesn't make sense.

I mean, for one thing, evolution is a very slow process and you can't actually see it happening. (Also, humans are apes, and humans didn't evolve from an existing species like chimps, we evolved from a common ancestor.)

MaeZe · Dec 17, 2017

The Otter said:
A lot of people seem to fundamentally misunderstand the whole concept. I've heard people ask things like, "If humans evolved from apes, why aren't there apes evolving into humans right now?" And I've never been sure how to respond because there are several levels on which the question itself doesn't make sense.

I mean, for one thing, evolution is a very slow process and you can't actually see it happening. (Also, humans are apes, and humans didn't evolve from an existing species like chimps, we evolved from a common ancestor.)

The easy answer is we have common ancestors, we're cousins not grandchildren.

Forgot to mention Roxxsmom, I love the Evo-Devo video. There is some excellent stuff there, the segments and Hox genes especially.

I noticed some of the work on moth wing colors that I've seen in this video if anyone has an hour. It will still make sense even if you don't understand all the terminology. It's from the UW science lecture series:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

To see more videos from the University of Washington visit uwtv.org.

Compared to a designed transistor radio where there is no room for error, non-design in this case works better.

The study I referred to was definitely about rabbits and fruit flies but it doesn't surprise me they've repeated the research with mice and fruit flies.

frimble3 · Dec 17, 2017

Chris P said:
I would like to ask them how close of a connection would satisfy them? Even if we dug up everyone who ever lived and lined them up each in front of their mother going all the way back, there would still be someone saying "Not good enough!"

I doubt there is any connection that would satisfy them. It's a deep core of their belief that people are God's special project.
On the other hand, they are practical about other natural phenomena: they don't believe that earthquakes, hurricanes, etc are God's punishment on anybody for anything, those are just part of the delicate mechanism of the world.
But, people have to be speshul, I presume to justify God's interest in us.

Biblical literalism, evolution and the role of terminology [split from Seven Little Words]

MaeZe

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

MaeZe

kikazaru

Benefactor Member

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

frimble3

Heckuva good sport

Davy The First

MaeZe

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

AW Admin

shortstorymachinist

The score is still Q to 12!

Brightdreamer

Just Another Lazy Perfectionist

frimble3

Heckuva good sport

Albedo

Alex

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

MaeZe

AW Admin

MaeZe

MaeZe

MaeZe

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

The Otter

Friendly Neighborhood Mustelid

MaeZe

frimble3

Heckuva good sport