Filling the holes
You know I get it, people are just looking for a way to fill the holes. But they want the holes, they want to live in the holes. And they go nuts when somebody else pours dirt in their holes. [yells out to nobody in particular] Climb out of your holes, people! House, Season 2, Episode 19 House vs. God
An excellent article by Richard Dawkins, one of the best at pouring dirt in their holes.
God’s Gift to Kansas
by Richard Dawkins
Op-Ed column in Free Inquiry 25 (5), 13-14, Aug/Sept 2005
Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it, “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery – that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand – is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do. Maybe we don’t understand yet, but we’re working on it! Each mystery solved opens up vistas of unsolved problems, and the scientist eagerly moves in.
Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. It is worse than galling. It threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect creationism or ‘intelligent design theory’ (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well-financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.
It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt, as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a show-piece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called ‘The fortyfold path to enlightenment’ in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least forty times independently around the animal kingdom.
The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.” Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on ‘appear to’, leaving exactly what a simplemindedly pious audience – in Kansas, for instance – wants to hear.
Deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many un-Christian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.
The standard methodology of creationists – indeed, all their arguments are variants of it – is to find some phenomenon in nature which, in their view or even in reality, Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty, not as a spur to honest research but in order to exploit and abuse Darwin’s challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right then, the alternative theory, ‘intelligent design’, wins by default.” Notice, first, the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! We are encouraged to leap to the default conclusion without even looking to see whether the default theory fails in the very same particular. ID is granted (quite wrongly as I have shown elsewhere) a charmed immunity to the rigorous demands made of evolution.
Notice, second, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s natural – indeed necessary – rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say:
“Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’m not a specialist in weasel frogs, I’ll have to go to the University Library and take a look. Might make an interesting project for a graduate student.”
No, the moment a scientist said something like that – and long before the student began the project – the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”
I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words, “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Once again this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation that was to follow. Sad hindsight tells me now how predictable it was that my remark would be gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore ‘gaps’ in the fossil record.
Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of gradually changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous ‘gaps’. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a ‘gap’, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! But in any case, note yet again the unwarranted use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the default assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.
It is utterly illogical to demand complete documentation of every step of any narrative, whether in evolution or any other science. Only a tiny fraction of dead animals fossilize and we are lucky to have as many intermediate fossils as we have. We could easily have had no fossils at all, and the evidence for evolution from other sources, such as molecular genetics and geographical distribution, would still be overwhelmingly strong. On the other hand, evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J B S Haldane famously growled: “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” No such anachronistic fossils have ever been found, despite discredited creationist legends of human skulls in the Coal Measures and human footprints interspersed with those of dinosaurs.
The creationists’ fondness for ‘gaps’ in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.
Tweet
Comments
What's truly fascinating is the need for a false dichotomy. The profering of "either science or creationism" reminds me of insidious push-polls.
"human footprints interspersed with those of dinosaurs."
Christians are still using this hoax as proof for the Bible. It gives great weight to the axiom i.e. tell a lie enough times and it becomes truth : <
I'd be more willing to look for traces of the alien space ship or the time machine that lost the rabbit while visiting the Precambrian - than to give up evolution.
I've heard Richard Dawkins described as a "militant" atheist. Assuming "militant" is meant in the rhetorical sense, I can see why; he certainly doesn't shy away from punchy, goading one liners: " Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas."
I interpret it as tough love.
I have a game I like to play. I will listen to Pat Robertson on TV and when I hear him use "God" in a declaritive sentence, I mentally replace the word "God" with "Pat Robertson", and restate the sentence in its true form.
so, this quote from Pat Robertson: "We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. "
Is properly stated: "We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in Pat Robertson's eye. We have insulted Pat Robertson at the highest levels of our government. "
This game works particularly well when Pat Robertson starts asking his audience to give money to God.
The game of course is not limited to Pat Robertson, but works well with anyone who speaks for God (e.g. makes an appeal to God as authority to their own words).
I'm pleased to see thoughts that echo my sentiments put in such an eloquant form. I only wish I was so... wordy.
so if it is ignorance that drives science, what is it that drives the bush administration?
is it belief, ignorance, or closet totalitarianims, that causes them to cast aside the consitution and act/profess/believe that absurd legal arguments are acutally legitimate?
beter yet, if ignorance drives science, what is it that drives the bush administration's environmental policy, by far the worst in U.S. history. wait, we already know that one...
Distaste for Dissent!! Hi! Long time no see.
"Ignorance is God's gift to Kansas" That's a great line. God is aparently quite generous if a bit unimaginative, having given that gift so freely to believers the world over.
Arrogance follows scientists like Ignorance follows the religious.
IMHO, a God that left evidence of Evolution in every sedimentary rock on the planet would not want followers that instead follow an ancient, edited, translated, book of politically motivated hear-say.
The science is arrogant line is utter BS. I grew up in Southern Baptist land and the mind boggling arrogance of those ignorant people is one of their least endearing features.
What is more arrogant than pretending you are made in the image of an invisible god, and that your 'special relationship' with that imaginary being gives you the right to deny access to birth control? What is arrogance if it isn't the idea that you should dictate civil law (that's for everyone) based on your unprovable beliefs and your belief in your own special righteousness.
What is more arrogant than the claim that you are special and 'saved' while people who don't join your special club are naturally evil as are their ideas. Simply because, as proudly ignorant as you are, you Know what's right. "Cause the Bible tells Me so".
The ignorance of the fundamentalist is matched only by it's unstinting arrogance.
You're just quoting people like Haggard and Roberson with the 'science is arrogant' bit. An idea coming from some of the most blatantly arrogant people on the planet It's one of the features they share with the Islamic fundies. Pure hate filled arrogance and an utter disregard for human dignity.
thomasmccay,
Respectfully, were I to fully list adjectives to describe the ignorantly religious I would never sleep.
Even if we assume the invisible guy in the sky is True, most religous people I quiz have never read their book front to back, have never read any OTHER religion's book at all, and argue that not just their faith, but their FLAVOR of faith (babtist, catholicism, mormon) is the only Truth. All others are Wrong. Period.
That would make God horribly inefficient in spreading the good word. And... One Truth? If you look at the Amazon. God is certainly fond of Diversity.
Although some argue that religion forms morality and thus forms our laws, I argue that all humans agree on 99% of Right and Wrong. I feel it is correct to allow any man his belief (including satan worship, etc) as long as he stays the hell out of my life. When Christian Inspired laws threaten MY LIBERTY, my HEALTH and the health of my WIFE, their religion is NO LONGER OUT OF PLAY and will recieve full critical analysis.
Aside: I grew up in a college town and have found 'learned' folks can be quite arrogant too. To some, Science is Religion, and arguing that alternatives exist to their 100 year old ideas brings harsh Blasphemy-esque accusations.
PS: I only quote Robertson to ridicule his hipocracy. *8) (Thous Shalt Not Kill so... Kill That Man!)
"I am sometimes accused of arrogant intolerance in my treatment of creationists. Of course arrogance is an unpleasant characteristic, and I should hate to be thought arrogant in a general way. But there are limits! To get some idea of what it is like being a professional student of evolution, asked to have a serious debate with creationists, the following comparison is a fair one. Imagine yourself a classical scholar who has spent a lifetime studying Roman history in all its rich detail. Now somebody comes along, with a degree in marine engineering or mediaeval musicology, and tries to argue that the Romans never existed. Wouldn't you find it hard to suppress your impatience? And mightn't it look a bit like arrogance?"
-Richard Dawkins
Arrogance in Science.
From my experience, people with multiple degrees do not feel the need to respect people without the same degrees, irregardless of actual real world education or work in the field
This arrogance is shown to their auto-mechanic when that mechanic is simply describing a car problem. It is shown to waiters serving them food, who have done nothing to earn ire. It is certainly shown to grad students doing the learned person's work and writing their papers for publication.
The sad part is, these educators haven't kept up with the times and frankily, don't know jack anymore. But, they do have tenure and a job for life.
In many ways Knowledge is a Religion. It is a system of belief apon which people hang their hat. I argue that people in general, after learning a 'system of belief' can be mighty arrgant about that belief. I believe it is human nature, formed through evolution, to form opinions and attempt to impose those opinions on others.
Hi Criag, I don't agree. I was trained for 10 years in history.
And now I have grown to think that that my hons degree in it and the way history is taught in is a waste of time.
I learnt more stuff about life by learning on the job.
Post a comment