A couple of weeks ago I had a short but heated discussion with a friend of mine at work. It all began when he saw the cover of my
current read; the book is titled Why Evolution is True.
Something in the title raised his hackles immediately,
because his face contorted in that way when someone’s beliefs have been
threatened. What followed was some snide
remark, which I have now forgotten. Now,
let me begin with asserting that this particular friend of mine is no
dummy. As a matter of fact, he’s a very
intelligent and well-read individual, whom I respect professionally at work,
and personally consider him a true friend.
This, however, is precisely why I was taken aback when he
raise the oft-heard protest from folks who have a religions belief that goes
against accepting the validity of Evolution.
But, in this case I was being assailed by a rather worthy opponent; this
friend of mine is a blitzkrieg debater, and his language skills and vocabulary
are par with anyone I’ve met.
Consequentially, because of the acumen he has displayed in the past at
ramming his point across, I knew this was going to be a very interesting debate,
and one in which the best I could hope for was a draw.
I will not recount all the details of our debate, but rather
will give a sense of his argument – a very good one indeed – in summary
fashion; I do this only to demonstrate that he has a well thought out protest
against believing in the theory of Evolution.
In short, and I do hope I do him justice here by using his own words,
here is his argument against believing in evolution: “the math just doesn’t add
up.”
His contention is that from a probabilistic stand point,
there is no way, even with the long geologic time spans, that mutations in the
alleles of any given population, over time, through the pressures of Natural
Selection, have brought all the diversity that we see now, or in the
paleontological record. He does not
believe that random mutation could, even over long stretches of time, have
caused speciation.
At which point I proceeded to inform him that that argument had
already been made, and that there is now so much evidence, both empirical and
inferred, from so many areas of the life sciences, that Evolution by random
mutation and Natural Selection are incontrovertible. That so far as science is concerned, the
“theory” of Evolution is now considered to be the “truth” in as far as it
“fits” all the evidence to date. Also,
that from a statistically consistent point of view, it has been mathematically
tested rigorously and passed every evaluation to date.
Unfortunately, our discussion was interrupted before I was
able to explain that one of the failings of his objection, and a common one at
that, was that us humans have a very hard time conceptualizing the true meaning
of geologic time; that in fact, one way to try to fathom these enormous
stretches of time is to look at the current and past biodiversity in nature and
try to understand how long it would really take life to bloom in such a way
knowing just how slow evolution takes place.
Yes, as slow as random mutation and Natural Selection are, and as long
as one would have to imagine for the possibility of life blooming this way;
that is indeed a good way to visualize how long earth has been revolving around
our sun.
However this may be, another interesting part of our
discussion was my discovery of how we humans, no matter how well read, how
erudite at argumentation, how bright we might be – it all is quickly trumped by
our emotionally driven deep beliefs in who we are and what we are; or at least
what we would teleological want to believe.
These beliefs are so ingrained into who we are that we will bend our own
logic against reason in order to view reality through our own prisms. This was
evidenced by me when in a last ditch effort my friend brought forth the
oft-used tactic historical accounting; an example of a time in which we humans
have been certain of something, only to have it overturned in the future. Unfortunately, it was a weak tactic, for he picked
a poor historical choice: arguing that a
reversal in the belief of Evolution might someday be seen as no different than
as was Galileo though a heretic by the church, only to have been vindicated
later as a true man of science.
Yes, I hope the reader finds the irony here as well. But just in case it is not clear let me delve
on this point for a moment.
Is it not the case, dear reader, that it was exactly the beliefs
of the church clashing against the reasoned ‘theories’ Galileo that assailed the
progress of truth? Yet, my estimable friend would use his beliefs to nullify
the reasoned, testable, and scientifically falsifiable “truth” of Evolution,
mirroring the tactic of the church against Galileo; the hero he purports as
being firstly wronged and then vindicated in time, yet assailing Evolution in
the same fashion as the church did Galileo.
My friend has assailed the scientific method with personal belief, yet it
is precisely this scientific method, birthed by men like Galileo, in the age of
reason, that has lead to the furtherance of truth. Maybe it’s just me, but his historically
inspired argument against the longevity of the Theory of Evolution seems to
work against him.
So, let us be honest here, my friend has veiled his wish for Evolution to not be true by disguising it behind his
brilliant acumen, and the overused and much discredited phrase “Evolution is
just a theory”; and all theories will probably be discredited in future. Of course, I immediately countered with the usual;
that is, I explained to him that a ‘theory’ in science is very different than
in common parlance. Also adding the
usual explanations about all the other theories in science that people take as
truths.
But of course, he must already have know this, and said as
much. He ended our discussion with the statement
that, if I may paraphrase: “we must all take any theory with a good amount of skepticism.”
I was quick to point out, however, that
skepticism is indeed one of the philosophical building blocks of the scientific
method, which in turn had arrived at the theory of Evolution.
At any rate, to me the interesting thing about him having a
hard time accepting Evolution as a description of what actually has transpired
in the Natural past, and what I ultimately found so fascinating, can be best
understood by quoting, appropriately enough, the very book that started our
discussion:
“[Evolution] is both revolutionary
and disturbing for the same reason: it
explains apparent design in nature by the purely materialistic process that
does not require creation or guidance by supernatural forces.”
And I would add, even if one does not believe in
‘supernatural forces’ per se, it is apparent to me, that for those who still do
not want to believe in the Theory of Evolution, it may be because somehow in a
cold, heartless, universe that created us randomly, some may find that the
meaning of our lives is diminished. But
for me, it is this aspect that makes me marvel at my own existence; one brief
moment in the life of this universe, in which through me all of creation may
know itself. This is enough for me, if
not for others.
One last word for what it’s worth. The true value of my discussion with my
friend was the humbling insight into my own failings: After some consideration I was made aware of
the fact that I had revealed one of mine own prejudices; for here was a person
that did not fit the stereotypical type opponent of Evolution. Instead, the
insight I gained here was one in which, through this person, I was able to
capture a glimpse into my own nature that a discussion with someone
stereotypically disbelieving of the theory would not have illuminated for
me. Namely, this taught me that I have a
blind spot when I come into an argument believing that my challenger is but an
intellectual trifle; that I am superior simply because they are unqualified to
discuss such maters with me. When in
reality, any human that I come into contact with is as deserving of their views as I
am, regardless of whether I regard them as savvy or not, and regardless of
whether I believe I can discredit their belief or not. What is more important is that we keep the
conversation going, and do not suppress other’s beliefs simply because we think
their belief, or person, to be subordinate.
There must be a balance struck between the search for truth, and the
noble aspect of inclusion of others’ value, and values. Truth has no value if it serves not but to
diminish others.
