Those in the scientific community who understand the importance of word-meaning don't "believe" in evolution any more than they "believe" in god. Rather, they "accept" evolution as fact.

A few years ago I had the chance to do a nine-day white-water/calm-eddy river raft of the Colorado River, in the company of a group of various scientists (geneticists, biologists, anthropologists and physicists included). It was an amazing and educating experience.

We camped out at night on the Colorado's sandbars and during the day--launching from a point in the Grand Canyon where the rocks, sediments and fossils were the oldest--steadily made our way along the river, examining the observable evidence for the long-term evolution of the Canyon. What was particularly interesting was to have compare-and-contrast presentations made by scientists along the way regarding the real-science evolutionary vs. the pseudo-science creationary explanations for how the Grand Canyon physically came to be.

Among those on the rafting trip was Eugenie Scott, physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education (the group that organized the river expedition).

Eugenie has made it a point then and since that when educating supporters of evolution on how to deal with an remarkably uninformed and illiterate public, it is very important to "watch your language," so to speak. In efforts to defend and explain the realities of evolution to novices and (in particular) to anti-science religious believer types, language is a critically important tactical device for use in the delivery of facts.

Below is the text of an interview with her on the importance of using words, language and terminology precisely and meaningfully:

"Watch your language! It’s a common message from Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org), an organization dedicated to promoting and defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scott recently spoke with Science News writer Susan Milius.

"[Question to Scott]: 'So you urge scientists not to say that they 'believe' in evolution?!'

"[Scott's answer]: 'Right. What your audience hears is more important than what you say. . . .What [people] hear is that evolution is a belief, it’s an opinion, it’s not well-substantiated science. And that is something that scientists need to avoid communicating.

"'You believe in God. You believe your sports team is going to win. But you don’t believe in cell division. You don’t believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you 'accept evolution.'

"Q: 'How does the language used to discuss new discoveries add to the problem?'

"Scott: 'To put it mildly, it doesn’t help when evolutionary biologists say things like, “This completely revolutionizes our view of X.” Because hardly anything we come up with is going to completely revolutionize our view of the core ideas of science. . . . An insight into the early ape-men of East and South Africa is not going to completely change our understanding of Neandertals, for example. So the statement is just wrong. Worse, it’s miseducating the public as to the soundness of our understanding of evolution.

"'You can say that this fossil or this new bit of data 'sheds new light on this part of evolution.'

"Q: 'So people get confused when scientists discover things and change ideas?'

"Scott: 'Yes, all the time. This is one of the real confusions about evolution. Creationists have done a splendid job of convincing the public that evolution is weak science because scientists are always changing their minds about things.'

"Q: 'So how do you explain what science is?'

"Scott: 'An idea that I stole from [physicist] James Trefil visualizes the content of science as three concentric circles: the core ideas in the center, the frontier ideas in the next ring out and the fringe ideas in the outermost ring. . . .

"'[We need to] help the public understand that the nature of scientific explanations is to change with new information or new theory — this is a strength of science — but that science is still reliable. And the core ideas of science do not change much, if at all.

"'The core idea of evolution is common ancestry, and we’re not likely to change our minds about that. But we argue a lot about … how the tree of life is branched and what mechanisms bring evolutionary change about. That’s the frontier area of science.

"'And then of course you have areas that claim to be science, like "creation science" and "intelligent design,” that are off in the fringe. Scientists don’t spend much time here because the ideas haven’t proven useful in understanding the natural world.

"Q: 'You’ve been on talk radio a lot. What’s your sense of what the public understands about evolutionary biology?'

"Scott: 'The public has a very poor understanding of evolution. People don’t recognize evolution as referring to the common ancestry of living things. Even those who accept evolution often don’t understand it well. They think it’s a great chain . . . of gradual increases in complexity of forms through time, which is certainly an impoverished view of evolutionary biology. That view is the source, in my opinion, of: “If man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?” ... That’s probably the second most common question I get on talk radio.

"'It’s like saying, "If you evolved from your cousins, why are your cousins still here?" And of course the answer is, well, in fact, I didn’t evolve from my cousins. My cousins and I shared common ancestors, in our grandparents.'

"Q: 'What’s the current state of the effort to keep schools teaching evolution?'

"Scott: 'Sometimes it feels like the Red Queen around here, where we’re running as hard as we can to stay in the same place. The thing is, creationism evolves. And for every victory we have, there’s pressure on the creationists to change their approach. We constantly have to shift our response. Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it."

"Q: 'What should scientists and people who care about science do?'

"Scott: 'I’m calling on scientists to be citizens. American education is decentralized. Which means it’s politicized. To make a change . . . you have to be a citizen who pays attention to local elections and votes [for] the right people. You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will . . . accept the science."

(Eugenie Scott, "Accept It: Talk about Evolution Needs to Evolve," in "Science News: Magazine for the Society for Science and the Public," vol. 176, #3, 1 August 2009, p. 32, at: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45594/title/Comment__Accept_it_Talk_about_evolution_needs_to_evolve; for a related thread, see: "Why I hate the phrase 'I don't believe in god.'" posted by "kolobian," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 5 December 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,357373)

*****


I suspect that theists prefer that atheists process like theists do; namely, in terms and context of "belief." Theists are big into "belief"-thinking (a true oxymoron) and seek to control the court by telling atheists that they (atheists) "believe" in their own "religion" of atheism. Religious processing of ideas through the use of "belief" language is the only kind of lingo that theists really know and feel comfortable with. It is a familiar, thumb-sucking Linus-like blanket to them.

http://possil.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/linus-blanket.gif


Therefore, it not only makes theists feel angry, it makes them feel uneasy and vulnerable when they are confronted with non-believers who don't buy into the believer's game of thought control through theistic terminology control. Deep down, theists may well realize that thinking is more grounded than believing. (For evidence of that, one need look no further than the futile and dishonest attempts by anti-science creationists to gain credibility in the real world by wrapping their other-worldly religious beliefs in the trappings of pseudo-scientific language).

Atheists scare the hell out of theists.



Edited 19 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 04:14AM by steve benson.

I agree with most of this. As I think I posted in another thread, when I was a "baby" in terms of my recovery/post-religious development, I was often confused and unsettled by my interactions with atheists who claimed to "believe" in science or scientific fact, for example, or who said that they didn't need to put their faith in God, they just put their faith in science instead (and in my mind it followed that that was the "real" truth to them, just as Mormons will say that the BOM is true because it's the real truth and no other church has the real truth). It really disturbed me, because I was desperately trying to find my mental footing, and it seemed like the only alternative to "believing" in God was to turn around and "believe" in something else. It seemed like just another person telling me, "Oh, I have the truth, don't worry. Here's the absolute truth. Just believe it and your life will be great." Because that had already happened to me over and over and I'd gotten burned and realized again and again that it WASN'T true. And I'd say that being aware of the effects of this type of language isn't just important in dealing with "religious believer types." It's just an inaccurate use of language, so we should be aware of it anyway. And when you've been brainwashed, that kind of speech can just sound like it's another snake oil salesman telling you his church is the "real" one because it just is.

Well, if this person gets the job done and teaches scientists to stop saying they "believe" in things like evolution, that might help clear up some of the apparent mis-use of the word believe as it applies to atheism. It sounds like theists are not the only ones contributing to the problem.

Now, the "religion of atheism" routine - that's an obvious attempt to control the debate.

I've long subscribed to the idea that there is no stupid question, but I'm reconsidering and thinking the first person who ever posed the question "do you believe in god" asked the first stupid question. Lining up on different sides dependent on the answer makes about as much sense as someone saying "did you smell that?" and war breaking out between the smellers and non-smellers.

I know, the atheists are innocuous. I hope they keep putting up marble benches at courthouses around the U.S. and beat the hell-bent righteous right-wing, wild-eyed religious freaks into submission. Even a god would be cheering for the atheists. I am.

Eugenie Scott's message is important. How we say a thing is just as important as the thing itself.

For example, your attempt at psycho-analyzing the motives of theists ends up a cartoon because of the way you said it, and is readily dismissed as such.


Theist or Atheist, we all believe and think. For my part, belief seems to come from my heart while thought from my head. I believe Andersen Silva will win a rematch and I think NSA surveillance unconstitutional and bad for Democracy and Liberty. But that is not to say that I don't have a lot of thoughts that lead me to conclude that Silva can beat Weidman or emotions surrounding government over-reach.

Distinguishing between a thought and an emotion is far more difficult than it may seem. Thoughts turn into emotions and emotions into thoughts all the time. And really, as neurological phenomena, they are the same thing.

Human

Steve Benson said:

"I suspect that theists prefer that atheists process like theists do; namely, in terms and context of "belief." Theists are big into "belief"-thinking (a true oxymoron) and seek to control the court by telling atheists that they (atheists) "believe" in their own "religion" of atheism. Religious processing of ideas through the use of "belief" language is the only kind of lingo that theists really know and feel comfortable with. "

So well put. I have observed too many people projecting the way they think onto me. They act as if my disagreeing with them means I must worship an evil deity. They regard science / secularism / liberalism as rival religious sects whose dogma doesn't embrace "the truth".

Have you ever been accused that you worship at the church of Dawkins or that Obama is your Messiah? (Lots of internet sites are like this.) That's just weird thinking.

It makes you wonder if some believers interpret reality through "I see the hand of God" glasses. Examples are finding your car keys because of prayer, a BoM surviving a fire that killed a family, the writing of the Constitution, and the "invisible hand of the market" all being chocked up to divine intervention.

Not everyone of faith is like this of course, there are lots of people who keep their religious part of their thinking separate from their science/reality part. But TSCC seems to create a lot of them. And boy do they vote and are very politically active.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 02:03PM by crom.

Thanks for the story. I enjoyed that. I agree that those defending evolution or explaining it to a skeptical public MUST be careful about the language they use so they don't play into the weird defense mechanisms of the other side.

It is just drawing from that the conclusion of the title that "Critical Thinkers Use Language More Precisely Than Theists" seems unfounded -- for so many reasons.

Some theists are famous critical thinkers, for one thing. We might like to consider these opposites, but the history of thought rather proves they are not. I would not pretend to be a better critical thinker than Frances Collins or St. Augustine or Garry Wills or just your average Jesuit or Jewish scholar.

Another is that some atheists use language very poorly and inaccurately. I think Dawkins habit of describing everything that is not provable as being like "fairies in the garden" is supremely irritating. The world is full of fictions, fantasies, and metaphors that are nothing like English "fairies in the garden" -- Star Wars, Pemberly, Dr. Spock, Krakens, Golems, Dragon Masters, Tom Sawyer, Rapunzel, and mermaids all might be provably not true, but they are all different from "fairies in the garden." Even the Irish leprechauns are discernibly different from English fairies! This is almost the perfect case of failing to use language precisely.

And finally, no one uses language more precisely than poets. It is, after all, their job. And the world is overflowing with fabulous theist poets. Mere scientists can hope to hold a candle to the precision of the language of Gerard Manley Hopkins or John Dunne -- or Bob Dylan -- indeed they should not try.

But while the title was eyebrow raising, the story of the post was good and did at some valid points -- just not that one. I would like someone to put into words the what the real point was.

Sorry for the blank post. I can't figure out the site.

But God's own descent
Into flesh was meant
As a demonstration
that the supreme merit
Lay in risking spirit
In substantiation.

--Robert Frost--
--"Kitty Hawk"--


Theist or Atheist, literalists will never understand Donne, Hopkins or Robert Frost.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 01:57PM by steve benson.

Really?

I wonder how you could possibly back up such an assumption?

Your critical thinking skills must be super-critical.

Odd, since I don't post about Darwin.

But thanks for reading!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 04:20PM by steve benson.

. . . to faith, which ultimately abandons critical thinking in favor of belief in the irrational.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 01:55PM by steve benson.

However, your statements at the end of your post violate all the advice that ES just gave.

. . . and know how she thinks.

Her in-Canyon explanations of how creationists believe rather than think were persuasive evidence of how they use the language of belief in attempting to deal with empiricist challenges.

. . . variety of disciplines. She built and maintained the framework of the trip in a non-creationist ungobble-do-gooked sort of way.

You just illustrated my point from another thread!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 02:05PM by steve benson.

It is quite fascinating that the thread seems to "debate" (using the word loosely) theism vs. Darwinism. Hmm. I think if you are touting evidence-based thinking, it is always nice to use -- some evidence.

1. Catholic schools teach evolution as fact and the Bible as metaphor.

2, "The Clergy Letter Project, which I founded and direct, demonstrates this simple point elegantly. Indeed, more than 13,600 clergy from all across the United States have come together to assert that not only are they in favor evolution being taught in our schools but that such a position in no way challenges their religious beliefs. These clergy members represent congregations large and small, conservative and liberal, evangelical and mainstream. They are as diverse as you can imagine with respect to race, age, gender, ethnicity and any other characteristic you might examine. What they all have in common, however, is the simple belief that a choice does not have to be made between God and evolution." From Huffington Post, "Evolution vs. God: Not a Choice Most of Us Have to Make."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/evolution-vs-god-not-a-ch_b_3530509.html?utm_hp_ref=religion-science

3. "These religious leaders are not alone in making this claim. The doctrinal statements of numerous Christian denominations from the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, as well as many others, not to mention similar statements from a host of other religious traditions, make this point exceedingly well." Ibid

. . . theistic evolution (i.e., evolution designed by, kickstarted and maintained by God (a premise that, on its face, lacks empirical evidence and ultimately is based on faith).



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 04:25PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . theistic evolution (i.e., evolution designed
> by, kickstarted and maintained by God (a premise
> that, on its face, lacks empirical evidence and
> ultimately is based on faith).


Not really. They teach a sound education. They teach that evolution is fact and the Bible is metaphor. Speculation about the role of god in evolution has no part in the classroom. That belongs in another class -- religion. Sorry that reality doesn't always match your stereotypes, but there it is -- it doesn't.

It is interesting when posters are given information and evidence that challenges their BELIEFS about religions and religious people how they rationalize away the evidence, but it does prove that rational thinking might be a challenge for all of us, atheists and believers alike, and that just as atheists don't hold a lock on being reasonable, believers are not always irrational. That black and white thinking is easier to transpose into a new realm than it is to lose -- at least for some -- at least apparently.

The fantasy came in, however, with him adding that God did it,

Mormons do the same.

It's all about the "comprehensive" education system. Whether it's taught in separate classes or not, it's all in the same building.

That isn't a sound scientific approach; rather, it's a demonstration of science being injected with the unscientific and then calling it truth in order to preserve the religion that is being advocated in the name of God but threatened by science.

Science is a fact system. Religion is faith system. Trying to mix the two is like crossing a female horse with a male donkey: The result is a sterile mule that can't go anywhere.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 07:03PM by steve benson.

I'm not very smart at this kind of stuff, but what is your opinion about spirit?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 07:04PM by steve benson.

I must have missed the tarmac.

Nevermind.

That's a religion-warped topic for another thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 07:12PM by steve benson.

Perhaps they just compartmentalized their thinking.

When I was growing up in a Baptist church, there was one Sunday School teacher who also happened to have an advanced degree in science and taught science at the high school level. Naturally, one of the church kids asked him, "So, what do you think about evolution?" He replied, "I accept evolution as valid science. I believe God created the universe, I just happen to think evolution was the way he did it."
Not everyone is a literalist, and not everyone thinks you have to choose one or the other. A person can have a generalized belief in "god" and still be a scientist and a critical thinker. I guess they just suspend their disbelief (or keep an open mind) on the "god" stuff because it's not something we can truly "study".

. . . of the brain, which is very easy for humans to do, given their large temporal lobe with loads of brain cells used to conjure of supernaturalistic belief systems. Indeed, humans can be incredibly imaginative and, in fact, often allow their fertile fantasies to override their analytical reasoning.

Or they choose to live in both worlds--one rational and the other not.


It's a very human, predictable, researched, scientfically-confirmed phenomenon.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 05:32PM by steve benson.

Also, while I agree with this general premise, it's a bit...presumptuous? to pit it as critical thinkers vs. Theists. I've known many an atheist who was not a very good critical thinker, unfortunately.

... as being true which don't square with known reality.

Where the two cannot be squared in the believer's mind, the believer predictably slips "God" into the gap to perform the convenient miracle needed to explain things and to keep the religious system going.

That is not critical thinking; that is wish-based fantasy.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 06:58PM by steve benson.

Right. That wasn't my point. My point was that atheism doesn't equal critical thinking. Many atheists are not thinking critically about their position. Some are. Many aren't.

. . , when it is put up against the scientifically vapid mindset of religion. One, of course, can find lazy thinkers in both camps but atheism, as a form of empirical reasoning, is more reliable and useful in the real world than is fantasy-land religion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 07:13PM by steve benson.

. . . to test faith. Bring in the warm fuzzies. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 07:22PM by steve benson.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: Here's how critical thinkers are encouraged to use language more precisely than theists.

I know I use sloppy terminology sometimes too. Thanks for bringing up the article -- it's good for me to be reminded why I should be careful with my phrasing.