Leaving all considerations of religion and worldview aside, can someone articulate for me why a scientific person needs to believe and trust in evolution in order to actually “do” science? By “do” I mean to do research that adds to the knowledge of some scientific field, or to discover a new drug or therapy, to operate on someone with a brain tumor, to discover hydraulic fracking, etc. How is one’s knowledge of the theory indispensable to the practice of science beyond just dogma? What predictive value or purpose does it serve?
What is the purpose of the thread? Is it debating your beliefs? or choosing a college for your son?
One key point is the simple fact that life changes.
Suppose that someone is doing research on various methods of treating viruses. Well…viruses are organisms that are subject to the same evolutionary forces as anything else. They change over time. This is why there are different flu vaccines every year…because the flu strains are consistently mutating and changing. How can one reconcile a a belief with some sense of “never-changing” life with the simple fact that the virus they were researching last year is no longer the same virus this year? It is of huge benefit to understand how and why these things change, because it offers a predictive value of the ways in which something is likely to change. This allows one to get a head start and cut things off early.
There are a lot of areas of medical science where this fact is not so relevant, however, this issue is inseparable from some of the earlier points made about various medical procedures and practices that go against various religious beliefs. A religious education tends to correlate with a tendency to strongly oppose these things, and as a doctor it is highly unethical to refuse a necessary treatment on the grounds of it opposing ones own religious beliefs, that are not necessarily shared by that patient. This is an absolutely ENORMOUS conflict of interest. If one cannot separate their religion from their profession, then they need to drop one of them, or find a way to reconcile their views.
Straw man - all do comfortablycurt - even at Liberty. There is a distinction between micro and macro evolution.
The latter.
comfortablycurt - you are welcome to try again. This time assume I meant macroevolution.
Basically, the theory of evolution states that species change over time as a result of the environment that they live in, and whatever it is that happens in that environment. For example, if an environment becomes drier, the living things there that do not produce progeny that can cope with a drier environment will die off. The small genetic changes that make one group more likely to produce progeny that survive will be reproduced in the next generations, and eventually the organisms will not be the same as their ancestors.
This pattern exists on the macro scale (changes in the organisms that live on a continent) and on the micro scale (changes inside our very cells). Predictions can be made on the likely direction of changes based on the nature of the environmental pressures, and on what is known about the genetic codes of an organism.
In addition, knowing that all organisms on the planet share a common ancestry allows us to extrapolate from one species to another. For example, we can use mice in the early stages of medical experiments because they are in many ways like us.
Some people do manage to use evolutionary theory as a model in their research, but accept the special creation of complete species in their non-work lives. The challenge of living on a day-to-day basis with that dichotomy in one’s head is not do be minimized. Most people cannot live like that, and eventually choose one side, or the other.
Let me just note that Young Earth Creation could be true–if God is a practical joker. It’s an idea I kind of like, but it may not be too helpful here.
OP, I think it may matter some just what your son’s views are. If he strongly believes in Young Earth Creationism, I fear he is going to have a hard time at many colleges, unless he plans to keep it secret. It could negatively affect his grades. To be blunt, some of his professors will simply not believe that he is highly intelligent if he believes that. So if he strongly believes in Young Earth Creationism, he may well be better off going somewhere like Liberty, although it may restrict his options later.
If, on the other hand, he believes that evolution occurs, but that there is a guiding intelligence behind it, and behind all creation, he can probably go anywhere he wants with no problems. The issue won’t really come up, except perhaps in late night sessions with his friends. Professors will not spend much time arguing about a view that isn’t disprovable.
Or they see no conflict, in they believe that there was a Creator, who used evolution as the method of creation.
In what way was my comment a strawman? How have I misrepresented any arguments? If one does not believe in evolution, then I can’t conceive of a way for them to rationalize changes in organisms.
What is the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution? Many people repeat these phrases as though they have some kind of significance, but they really don’t. There is no such distinction. There is just evolution. Many repeated instances of microevolution over long periods of time are what results in macroevolution. Saying that this isn’t the case is equivalent to saying “I believe that I can take many 1 mile trips, but there is no way that I could ever take a 1000 mile trip.” You can’t have one without the other. Many small evolutionary changes eventually result in large evolutionary changes over great periods of time. This is all one continuous process though; It’s not as if we classify evolutionary observations as being instances of either micro or macro evolution. As populations of a species become geographically isolated from one another, they diverge from one another via natural selection, sexual selection, and a smaller degree of simple genetic drift. This is how speciation occurs. Eventually these geographically isolated populations lose the ability to breed with one another because they have been isolated for such a long period of time that they are no longer recognizable as the same species, despite sharing many of the same traits.
And on that note, I’m going to step out of this thread. This is becoming more of an ideological debate than anything else, and that’s not what I typically come to CC to discuss.
Good luck, and I hope that your son ends up at the school that will be the best fit.
To make it easier to understand, consider if people argued for including astrology in a university classroom. They sincerely believe it is true and has explanatory power, just these obstinate scientists refuse to see it. To be fair, they will accept astrology being taught equally as one competing theory.
Creationism and its cousin intelligent design are no better than astrology. No serious science training need give credence or even respect to any of them.
Scientists know about the eye, and about micro- and macro-. These sound like clever argument-words to make against evolution, but if you bother to read evolutionary material, you will see the theory is pretty robust.
Then there is the backup claim that scientists themselves don’t really think evolution is true, but they have to go along with a giant pretense in order to get grant money in order that they can feed their families …
[noparse]
Leaving all considerations of religion and worldview aside, can someone articulate for me why a scientific person needs to believe and trust in evolution in order to actually “do” science? By “do” I mean to do research that adds to the knowledge of some scientific field,
[/noparse]
I think there are two answers.
First, do you have to subscribe to the theory of evolution to do any type of science? No. However, in biology, evolution is this theory for which there is the most evidence, and which has the most explanatory power. So, if you wanted to do research in biology, I think you would have a hard time being taken seriously if you ignored this.
This relates to the second answer. Scientists deal with evidence. If the evidence does not support their view, the change their view. That’s the nature of scientific progress. A subscription to creationism or young-earth accounts is at odds with a considerable amount of evidence. So the danger here is being perceived as not being open to evidence - which by definition is not scientific.
I’m not saying this to disparage anyone’s view (though I go with the evidence), but just to note how this could be perceived.
How about Hillsdale College? I am not sure what their track record is on preparing students for medical school, but of the colleges in this general category it seems most respected for encouraging critical thought.
Hillsdale is a great suggestion. Another school to look at is Grove City.
Can’t speak to whether a student would be hindered by an undergrad degree from Liberty when applying to med or grad school, but personally, I would not be comfortable with a physician who does not believe in evolutionism.
Which is why I suggested civil engineering for this young man vs. life sciences. He can train for a career with a science foundation where his own personal beliefs will be largely irrelevant once he’s passed whatever required courses there might be in bio and potentially chem.
The point is not necessarily whether he needs to believe in evolution to work in Life Sciences- I think that’s a tangential issue. The point is that stem cells, artificial insemination, pain management only vs. treatment for someone with a terminal diagnosis, use of cord genetic material, abortion, contraception, genetic counseling, surgical interventions during a pregnancy, etc. are all issues which have some theologically controversial component. If each and every time he comes up against instructors/mentors/faculty members where he has a religious objection to the content being taught he will have to think and rethink his beliefs (or his scientific training) seems to me like Life Sciences is a poor choice from the get-go.
Blossom, respectfully, of all the arguments made in this thread this is the one I find most interesting. I can deal with the fact that there is a debate about evolution. Put that aside for a minute. Let’s say both my son and I continue to educate ourselves and ultimately decide that there is no barrier or limitation by design that would prevent a distinction from being made between micro and macro evolution. That we accept that even humans some day after the passage of enough time could become an entirely new species, unable to breed with a present day human being. Let’s say we both accept the theory and ultimately find it to be compatible and workable side by side with belief in a creator who is a moral being. That this type of reconciliation can be done and that many have done it has been acknowledged by several in this thread.
Are you are suggesting that anyone with a sense of values and morality that is based on any form of religious faith shouldn’t practice medicine or do research in the life sciences? Such a person must be atheist with a secular worldview? Is that for their own sake or for the sake of society?
Maybe you will eventually reject this part.
LOUKYLOU while we may disagree on many things, I agree with your last comment. One may have certain views on all those things listed, and those views may come from religious faith, or not. They may be very strongly held views. They do not make one “unfit” to practice medicine.