The Evolution of Evolution Rhetoric

Or: How to adapt your talk about evolution so as to survive the competition. Surely that is what Eugenie Scott has in mind in the August 1, 2009 issue of Science News ("Accept it: Talk about evolution needs to evolve." page 32) First, do not as a scientist say that you "believe in evolution." Your audience hears "that evolution is a belief, it's an opinion."  "You don't believe in cell division. You don't believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you 'accept evolution.'."

SO would one say we should believe in the evolution of evolution rhetoric, or just that we assume it? The trouble is, the word evolution is so widely used today that includes developments that are the results of intelligence. (I have heard about the evolution of major league baseball as well.) I do not think Eugenie Scott, assuming that she approves of Science News's use of the word "evolve" to describe what she's proposing, views the anticipated improvement in evolution rhetoric (enhancing its survivability) as the product of random changes over time which have no intelligently directed purposes in mind. Got that?

Comments

[bonobo]

includes developments that are the results of intelligence. (I have heard about the evolution of major league baseball as well.)

Mr. K., Are you introducing a pointed dichotomy here? :)

[Mairnéalach]

It seems that IDist rhetoric is also changing in response to pressures. I remember early IDist rhetoric being strongly against a visible commitment to the God of the bible as a designer. I assume the intent was to be coy and avoid scaring off potential converts. After the airing of IDism in the courts, it appears that those early strictures are breaking down and the religious motivation has been brought out from behind the curtain. I view this as a positive development, since I believe that positing a designer other than YHWH is disingenuous and unworthy of any kind of Christian commitment or support.

[JRM]

Scott makes a fine point that could use some emphasis. Scientific theories are always held provisionally. "Belief" therefore is a sloppy way of characterizing how people relate to the solid science.

Scientific research continues to demonstrate the essential validity of the scientific method and of evolution. You can either accept it or reject it. "Belief" is not really an accurate description.

[Bill Gnade]

During a Q&A session after a panel discussion on evolution v. intelligent design/science v. faith held at the nearby college, I was offered a chance to ask several questions. Of course, there were no legitimate ID theorists represented, nor were there any really informed theists. But I recall asking a question of the panel about the difference between fact and theory. The answer I received was rather telling; I believe it is germane to the discussion here. I was told, in essence, that what science calls theory the layman would understand as fact, and what science considers fact is really popularly understood as theory. In other words, evolution was fact, not theory, and yet examples or evidence of evolution, or evidence of anomalies in evolution, were not "factual" in the sort of charmingly inflexible way common to antiquated thinkers; they were really elastic and open to interpretation. The paradigm of evolution was static and firm; the theory does not change, therefore it is fact. But the so-called facts are elastic, dynamic: since the data, i.e., facts, either change or are changeable, they are therefore theoretical.

Has anyone heard this sort of curious inversion before? The odd thing is that as I listened to this explanation, offered as it was with such facility and ease, I found my head surprisingly open to this sophistry while my gut was warning me lunacy was imminent.

Peace.

[bonobo]

I view this as a positive development, since I believe that positing a designer other than YHWH is disingenuous and unworthy of any kind of Christian commitment or support.

I can't agree. The ID program comprises a valid scientific hypothesis: Behe's "irreducible complexity" and Dembski's "complex specified information" are paradigmatic here. It may all turn out to be disproven, but it is valid scientific enquiry, as far as I can see. That a Christian may absolutely support.

[Mairnéalach]

I agree. I have no beef with open inquiry. I simply have strong reservations about the maneuverings of the ID movement which purports to speak for every person who believes in design. The movement seems to want to prove God, but not to speak his name, and that is bizarre to me. Perhaps their aims, means, and rhetorical tactics are perfectly valid and appropriately shrewd, and I just don't get it.

[Judy K. Warner]

There are atheist supporters of ID such as David Berlinski.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I think Berlinski is agnostic.