I saw a DVD in my public library called “Lies in the Textbook”. Before I had a chance to pick it up, assumptions came to mind. I thought it was going to be a jab at the way history books have been a product of the privileged pen.
So I was surprised when I read the back of the case to see that this lecture-on-video was the work of a science teacher. At home watching it, this man in his slacks, button-up shirt, and tie spoke to a crowd about those “religious” and “foolish” who buy into the non-scientific. The audience joined him in laughter as they mocked those who accept such stretches of logic to bend to their beliefs.
The kicker? This man was saying all these things about the teachers and scientists who support and teach evolution.
It was a total table-turner to see him get after those who subscribe to the accepted beliefs of evolution for being that which the science community accuses the religious speaker and his ilk to be! But more than a neat role-reversal, it was telling about how much we all value science, logic, evidence, reason, and how much we all have a tendency to contort the truth to fit our ideas.
The speaker demonstrated examples of modern scientists trying to squeeze all of the natural world into their theory. In turn, however, Creationists purport ideas that have no ability to be tested by science whatsoever: that God created the world in 6 days. I’m not quite sure where he gets off pointing fingers at scientists for buying into a “religion”–as he deemed it–when he blatantly accepts what his religion claims.
Despite this, I appreciated the speaker because we don’t hear too many Creationists laud science as he did, and so did something I rarely see: taking a very critical eye toward popular scientific theory and finding all the places they fall short.
We live in a world where you have to pretty much believe in what biologists and geologists teach, otherwise you’re labeled as kooky or fundamentalist. Yet I’ve had concerns about accepted beliefs about how earth formations and animals came about as they are today.
Every time there’s a geological formation that interesting, it’s explained with gradual changes stretched over ions. But when I visited Thailand and China where walls of rocks jutted out of the water, I didn’t believe that anything that gradual was the cause, but rather, that there was some real key points that made the difference:
If this river in China was slowly eking its way down through the rock, why is there an unusual amount of erosion at the river’s current level? The formation wasn’t steady, but seems to have formed fairly suddenly with it’s current state in place for a long time.
I know I’m supposed to use a time-lapse perspective when imagining geologic change, but I also have a hard time believing that the Colorado River created the Grand Canyon as theorized and accepted to the point of being considered fact:
There are a lot of these theories now considered fact. And when 8th graders take a test in school and the question is: How did the Grand Canyon form? They have to choose A, B, C, or D. And they get a worse grade if they don’t pick B: the Colorado River carved it.
These are the lies that the speaker was getting at: that we call these theories fact. And though I’m not a follower of his ideas, he’s on to something.
When something is a fact, there’s no need to question it. Blind acceptance is something people like to accuse religion of promoting, and that this is the case in science textbooks is especially troubling because science is, by definition, the act of testing and retesting, challenging and questioning. If we stop questioning, it’s not just the people who get lazy, it’s the scientists who can take it easy because they chip their theories in stone.
How do we expect future scientists to be original and creative when they are told facts that aren’t facts?
(I know some of this is in reaction to Creationists like the speaker in my DVD. Scientists don’t want to waste time battling over well-proven theories. But in this process it seems they’ve broken some of their own rules.)
My final beef with the natural science community is that I’m supposed to believe that humans evolved over generations from another, ancient species. But to me, it’s clear humans are completely unique–not just with the brains, but the hands to create. Also, to go from an assumed all-hairy ancestor to only having hair in a few places as our African relatives and ancestors have seems quite a leap. Indeed, the creation of humans appears to represent a whole new plateau in the development of life. The existence of that rock wall in China and the Grand Canyon also appear to be the result of more drastic creations.
I think there’s something more to the present state of the Earth and its inhabitants than meets the yet-scientific eye. That’s the reality of science: it only accounts for what we can measure. I’d like to see a scientists acknowledge these holes. It isn’t an either/or thing. Either science has the answer or it’s Biblical. Maybe it’s something totally different–not yet measurable.
to new plateaus,
-Brandon
p.s. The man in the video was Kent Hovind, a well-known speaker and advocate of Intelligent Design, a 6,000 year old Earth, and the Creation as it is written in the Bible. He is now in prison; the feds locked him up for not paying enough taxes.
More ignorance on the part of the uninformed. Take a geology or biology class and learn the facts. You can believe anything; you can believe the moon is made out of green cheese if you want. But that doesn’t make it a fact.
I think you need to re-read the post. The word “fact” is a strong one. One that is thrown around too freely, in my opinion. Yes, there is strong evidence to uphold many of the current theories put forth in biology and geology classes, but just as there is no way to measure or prove that God created the Earth, there is no real way to prove the theories about the Colorado River carving the Grand Canyon. None of us were there and there is evidence it was created that way, but it’s also possible that there was a single larger event that created it. I agree with Brandon’s view that people are too quick to take science’s claims of fact just as religions are too quick to blindly accept their claims. We as humans would be better served if we all would take a more critical look before simply accepting what is presented as fact.
This article is without any factual backing and is a collection of statements that perpetuates a complete misunderstanding of science and the scientific method.
The scientific method uses a hypothesis that can be tested and re-tested as you stated earlier. However, just because we believe something to be true, such as the theory of gravity, does not mean that scientists/physicists have stopped researching and testing it. Far from it, as we explore Higgs Boson and string theory we learn more about the world we live in. Saying that scientists stop researching and become lazy is an absolute falsity. The CERN supercollider is a great example of scientists from around the world coming together to better understand the origin of the universe and humanity.
With regards to your statement of how humans evolved from “an assumed all-hairy ancestor to only having hair in a few places as our African relatives and ancestors have seems quite a leap” is yet another example of a blatant misunderstanding of evolution, biology, and science. For one, we have a very firm grasp on how evolution occurs and can in fact use computers to simulate how populations evolve and migrate. Second, we witness evolution occurring in animals all the time, from the shape of an animals beak to their fur/feather color in response to man-made pollution. Finally, as you discussed earlier, the scientific method is reliable and re-testable. The same cannot be said about ascribing the creation of man to God.
To quote Bill Nye, who you’ve tagged as a keyword in this article, “if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them.”
I would love to read an article you post that describes in detail how creationism created everything we see around us using factual data and the scientific method. Until then, I think science is doing a pretty good job of explaining how our world works.
I don’t deny evolution. I said there are holes in it as there are in the theories that explain current geology. I never said I believe in the creation story. In fact, I said I don’t.
Just because you give examples of scientific progress doesn’t mean my points about scientists being lazy about the areas I bring up aren’t valid.
Brandon,
I commend you for pointing out that people should not blindly accept what they are told without doing some critical thinking and research for themselves. You are absolutely correct in that point.
However, by stating that scientists are lazy about the examples you mentioned (geology of the Grand Canyon, evolution of the human species, etc.) you are actually making the same mistake that you warn against in your post. With all due respect, you are being the lazy one for not doing further research into those topics yourself.
“Scientists” are not some elite group who make up all the rules and collectively decide what should or should not be studied; rather, anybody can contribute to scientific knowledge by using the scientific method and researching topics they are interested in.
The theories that usually make it into scientific textbooks are based on the conclusions of hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed studies conducted by critical-thinking people all over the world. If you put the hard work, time and energy into it, you too could be a scientist.
I have spent a lot of time reading about Evolutionary Ecology and I can assure you that if you did more research for yourself, you would understand that Ashley is correct in her post above (except where she mistakenly assumed that you supported creationism).
One other point to keep in mind: the first thing I learned in Biology 101 was that science can never “prove” anything. It can only disprove what is not true and provide the most probable answer for natural phenomenon based on the observable evidence. Most scientists know this and are constantly searching for more evidence to better understand/illustrate the way natural processes really work. Thus, the body of scientific knowledge is ever-changing and ever-growing. Theories are formed when countless studies have disproven alternate hypotheses, and when thousands of pieces of evidence point to the theory as the most probable way that a process works (think germ theory, theory of gravity, etc.)
I encourage you to do more research into human evolution and geology; a good place to start would be Google Scholar. Thank you for your post, and I apologize for the rambling nature of my own 🙂
First, I never called scientists lazy in my article. (But in my last comment, I mistakenly reacted to Ashley B’s comment which falsely accused me of doing so.)
Still, you’re both right in steering me away from disparaging scientists. Thank you for that.
Yet you also miss my points. I don’t have a problem with theories in the textbooks. But we shouldn’t state them as facts as I illustrated in my article. The Colorado River carving out the Grand Canyon is not the same as saying the Civil War started in 1865. Yet we treat it as such, and that’s wrong.
I know science is an ever-changing practice. That’s exactly why I’m critical when they don’t leave room for change! Wouldn’t it be better if books read: “Scientists believe the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years or Colorado River erosion.”? Instead the books say, “The Grand Canyon WAS formed….”
Hi Brandon,
Thank you for taking the time to listen to our comments. I am glad that they are not going unheeded. I see what you mean- it is true that science does not know for a “fact” that the Grand Canyon (for example) was carved out over millions of years.
However, using the wording “scientists believe it was formed….” would imply that scientists are just guessing. That wording would minimize all the evidence and research that went into determining the leading theory (of formation by erosion over millions of years) and put the “belief” of scientists on the same level as the “beliefs” of others who have done no research whatsoever (for example, people who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old).
Perhaps it would be better if people would just keep in mind that the theories in textbooks are not absolutely 100% proven while at the same time realizing that they (the theories in textbooks) are the most probable explanation based on thousands of observations and years of study by many scientists.
In other words, while most scientific theories may not be “facts,” as you define them, they are most likely 95-99.99% proven, with a little room for interpretation 🙂 Thank you again for your posts, and might I add that I really appreciate your encouragement of critical thinking and open-mindedness!
Thanks for writing this. I was actually just having this conversation with my husband, who is going to school to become a HS Chemistry teacher. I get so frustrated when things are presented as fact when they are just long-standing theories. Because we are humans and not all-knowing, there are very few things we can ever know for certain about things that happened before we were here. I, too, think there are several strong points of evidence pointing to evolution, but I also think there was a higher power at work. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why is it so mind-blowing to accept the possibility there was more than one force acting to bring about our existence and planet as we know it today?
most scientists are super narrow minded. They base all their theories on unscientific theories, one has to have more faith to believe
Brandon
It’s hard to know how to replay to your blog post. You’ve discounted the value of teaching common natural science knowledge as facts in school text books, and apparently wish that scientists would present all of their evidence whenever a general topic is raised. The slow and powerful geological processes that lead to the many ancient landforms we see around us can be described and have been documented in multiple lines of evidence many times in numerous scientific studies and books. For presentation in a school textbook as you allude requires a huge amount of distillation unless you want every textbook to be very lengthy indeed. Scientists usually provide citations for the interested reader that allows the further analysis of work for which the author is refereeing to. In a k-12 textbook this is somewhat limited, but college textbooks will provide much detail. For examples such as the Grand Canyon, if you truly wanted to evaluate the theories of its evolution, you only have to pick up a book and begin to read the theories and the backup literature that was used to construct the theory. Since geology is a science that does require some knowledge of chemistry, physics, and biological processes you may have to learn some of these basics also.
In a similar manner, your comments concerning human evolution seem to suggest you are unwilling or unable to explore and examine the multitude lines of chemical, biologic, and geologic evidence that support the theory of evolution. The “holes” you speak of are not articulated to the point that a “scientist” can even respond to them. Creationists typically trot out some well-worn and discounted ideas that I suspect you are well aware of. These have been refuted many times but they often become arguments that require you to examine some basic aspects of the sciences of chemistry, biology, and geology in order to understand. Yes this is difficult. It’s also difficult for me to understand all the details that lead to the operation of the laptop I’m currently typing on but that doesn’t mean that some people don’t take the time and patience to do so.
Unfortunately creationist ideas stem from religion not science. I’m not saying religion is bad but it is not science. Science does not guarantee a desired worldview or religious doctrine.
p.s.
The scientist in your documentary, Ken Hovind, claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school’s catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school’s faculty or their credentials. Some of us consider this a degree mill. He was jailed following multiple felony convictions stemming from complications of running “Dinosaur Adventure Land” a young earth creationist themed adventure park that featured dinosaurs being ridden by humans. Basically he brought in millions of dollars and much of it ended up in his pockets.
Thanks, Carl. Your comments are well-received and appreciated. You’re right, and I was aware of this as I wrote this post, that I said “holes” but never gave examples. This piece would have been better served as a much longer one, but this is a blog so wanted to keep it short.–kind of like the argument you make above about the textbooks needing to be distilled.
I wasn’t trying to disparage science in the least. I’m ALL about the science. I just stated that science is limited to the measurable. Because of this and the nature of science being ever-changing we ought to not be so confident in what we think we know–specifically regarding geology and evolution. We could do this succinctly in the way I mentioned above in response to Megan L. Instead of saying “this IS what happened”. Say, “this is what WE BELIEVE happened”.
Perhaps the main point of my piece, though, is that we can learn something from Hovind, that it takes one to know one and so he spotted “religious” activity within the scientific community when he saw it. No matter the source, if it points the way to truth, so be it.
I’m not going to devote the time to creating a well referenced and cited response to your post, though to be sure the references are out there for anyone willing to do the digging. And I hold no animosity towards you, though I do disagree heartily with your assertions regarding holes in current scientific knowledge. I certainly admit that holes exist in our knowledge, one good example is the relative time of the evolution of speech and spoken language in pre-human or human ancestors, though are hundreds of thousands of others I am sure. We have theories, all based on either evidence or logical inference, but as of yet there is no theory established as fact regarding the exact timing of the development of human speech. This is one small example.
The ‘holes’ that you identified are frankly not holes. The Grand Canyon was carved by moving water. It occurred over the course of roughly a million years. Long by human standards, but a blink in geologic time (which is often measured in billions of years). Whether you want to call this ancient waterway the Colorado River or not is semantic; it was a river, its flow changed size and course repeatedly over time, it carved the canyon, and today it exists as what we call the Colorado. Similarly, the loss of body hair on human ancestors is trivial, given millions of years, by biological standards. (Also, every museum reconstruction you have ever seen of ‘hairy’ pre-humans was an artist’s rendering, no one is sure exactly how much body hair covered our more ancient cousins).
My point is this. Yes it is important to question science, for new generations of thinking individuals to question the work of their mentors, because without a culture of skepticism we might still believe starlight traveled through the ‘ether’ of space. But the questions you are asking have already been questioned and answered to pretty much everyone’s satisfaction, including yours I would bet, if you went looking for the answers.
Thanks to you as well, Stuart. That was a very respectful reply as I know it might have been tempting to call me names.
Maybe it’s my inability to think in terms of geological time, but what if instead of crediting the Colorado for carving the Grand Canyon, we turn it around and observe the Earth splitting on its own accord and the river lowering as a result. Is that silly?
Also, if water erosion created the giant pillars of rock jutting out off the Phuket coast of Thailand, why has that pattern of erosion stopped? This is evidenced similarly as the image in my article, where instead of the water digging further down, its level is steady and so is eroding into the rock at that same level. You don’t see this inward erosion five feet up the rock or ten feet or fifty feet. It’s only at the present level.
Regarding human evolution, I guess it’s just really hard for me to imagine a point–way back when–when, say, humans just up and decided to start wearing clothes. Now every human does. No animal needs to. Even in the best climates, though. humans need something to cover themselves at night, I believe.
What does this indicate about human evolution that even people in Kenya, the location of our species origin, need to cover up to survive?
Humans live in every climate on earth, and most fall outside of the band of temperatures which we can tolerate. Evolution is slow and human beings are relatively new in these various climates, and so we use cultural evolution to survive them, not biological. In the few places where humans don’t need clothing to protect themselves from the elements (heat, sun, cold, insects) they just might not wear any (try the jungles of Brazil for instance). But they also are a culture and their cultural norms might be to cover up something or decorate something. Cultural evolution isn’t biological evolution.
However, even today you can see biological differences in peoples from the Arctic and tropical Africa, for instance. Dark skin vs. light (to capture more vitamin D from the sun), tall and skinny with lots of surface to volume to shed heat vs. short and compact to conserve body heat.
It isn’t silly to think that the earth opened up a crack and formed the Grand Canyon which the river now follows. It also isn’t scientific unless and until you then formulate some hypotheses about how it could happen, what evidence there might be that it did happen, and then go out and seek evidence. The hypotheses might be confirmed or might not, or might be modified. Also, geology and the natural sciences assume that processes in action today and around the world work the same today as they did in the past and in other places. We don’t believe that there are natural laws of one kind working in the Americas and other different ones in China or 500,000 years ago. So, we can look to see if the earth has opened up elsewhere to make great canyons for instance.
The kinds of evidence you would find for the earth splitting open would be massive folding of geologic beds, faulting and shifting of rock beds, etc. I don’t believe those things are found in the Grand Canyon. Any catastrophic event large enough to create that canyon would have left marks we can find and understand. Also, unless the earth surface uplifted where the Grand Canyon is (which I believe is the explanation for the gorge being cut), there would have had to have been a giant lake on one end of the canyon before the split, or another river bed that carried that water away. Those things are not in evidence today. That’s the kind of thing geologists are looking for when they are trying to understand the geological past.
I think that the Thai pillars could also have been formed by uplift or subsidence. Imagine a limestone plateau, which is made up of strata of different hardnesses. As soft stone erodes, hard stone caps protect soft stone below so that you get pillars. Just like in the Black Hills or badlands. Then what if the ocean level came up 200 feet and submerged the base of the pillars? We know that the ocean levels were something like 300 feet lower during the ice ages. So it could have happened that way. That is a hypothesis which a scientist would then go out to test.
Thanks, Bill, for yet another great message from the readers of this piece. You’ve given me a lot to think about. Indeed, I wish I knew a geologist who I could take out for coffee and ask all these questions to.