Why Is It So Hard To Figure Out What Is True?! (Science Problems)

[00LukeMan]

I've spent my entire life a Christian and just accepted it. I knew all the people around me, I thought and still think that they are generally intelligent. I thought if it's good enough for those smart people, it's good enough for me.

Then I looked into it and thought, "wait a minute." Now I am utterly unimpressed by Christianity and any form of theism or superstition. Problem is, there are still a lot of smart people who do believe. If I can take time to really break down their arguments or if I can find someone more knowledgable who has already broken down their arguments, I can see the problems, but I just wish I could do it on the spot.

This happens pretty frequently too. Talking with a professor at school who said that without God there was no morality (causing me to research divine command theory and its problems as well as develop a better working definition of morality) and now talking with a friend at the church I used to attend. He is older than me and is working on finishing his master's degree. He is intelligent, I just think he is basing his ideas on the wrong things. But he can talk circles around me and I'm just left feeling slow and stupid. I still think he's wrong, but I can't clearly express the problems with his ideas in any timely manner.

Recently we were talking about evolution (something I have been sheltered from and misinformed about my entire life); I am just now researching it and it is fascinating and seems well supported, much more so than creationism. My friend posted an article by Kirk Durstan on how recent findings would spell the end of evolutionary theory. Such a sensationalist statement seemed unlikely to be true, so I took a look at the article (http://p2c.com/students/blogs/kirk-durston/2015/06/essential-prediction-darwinian-theory-macroevolution-falsified).

From what I understood, Durstan is claiming that most mutations are harmful and that these occur much more frequently than any neutral or helpful mutation. Essentially, things are just getting worse all the time rather than better.

First, I don't see how that spells the end of evolution. Shouldn't natural selection work against those mutations?

Second, we have good examples of beneficial mutations (the constant adaptations of diseases which force us to develop new vaccines, Richard Lenki's E. Coli experiment, and the beaks of Galapagos finches come to mind).

However, my friend remains unimpressed. He calls Durston a "leading expert in his field," says he's read hundreds of articles in support of evolution and that they all "assume their conclusion and "support" it with select "evidence" that does not account for the whole picture."

 

Am I the problem? Am I just too stupid? Am I looking in the wrong places? I know evolution is strongly supported by the fossil record, genetics, embryology, biogeography and more. I know that it makes predictions which are confirmed by experiment. I know that beneficial mutations can and do happen and that natural selection will work in favor of those mutations and against harmful ones.

I know that creationism makes few to no predictions, is not falsifiable since the goalposts will always be moved, that it demands supernatural explanations without any way to show supernatural causation and that most of its claims are TOTAL BULLSHIT.

So why do I feel like the idiot?

Why is it so fucking difficult to find clear and reliable information on anything? I have a problem, I look for information, I find some that seems good and solves my problem, then I find conflicting but equally compelling information, then I find counter-information to that which is equally compelling, ad nauseum. How do I figure out the answer? I would say test it, but I'm not remotely qualified. Those who are qualified have tested it and both sides still claim to be correct!

 

I don't want to give up and be a sollipsist but this is frustrating as hell. Things were certainly simpler when the Bible was the answer to all questions (never mind those people who interpret it differently). I want to have well-informed, rational, defensible opinions, but it's just so fucking hard.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

"Most of creationism's claims are total bullshit".  Nope. All of creationism's claims are total bullshit.  It's based on a pre-scientific ancient work of fiction, written when people did not know where the sun went at night.  It doesn't deserve any consideration at all.

 

It is not difficult to find clear and reliable information on any important scientific topic.  You just need to look harder... ask us here, we will point you in the direction of robust information.  When you read info that you find "equally compelling", why do you find it so compelling?  Give us some examples and we will show you how to sort through it.  You are right when you said "those who are qualified have tested it"... stick with those... make sure they are actually qualified, and not just claiming to be.  "Both sides still claim to be correct". Yes, people who are wrong will claim to be right.  You need to figure out why they are wrong.

 

I have never come across a creationist who had a PhD in biology.  They typically have degrees in unrelated fields, if at all.  The only people qualified to argue against the theory of evolution by natural selection are people with post doctoral quals in evolutionary biology, who have continued to hold academic positions in that field.  If they were fired after becoming a xian and trying to teach creationism, they don't count.

 

Be careful around people who rely on the false equivalency logical fallacy.  There is no equivalency between a scientific and a non scientific argument, or between a scientific argument with poor evidence and one with good evidence.

 

Read up on logical fallacies, so you can more easily spot them.  Skilled scientists and other thinkers are careful to avoid them.  Another topic of study I recommend is the cognitive distortions/biases that psychologists write about.  There are lots of websites listing both these issues. Hopefully others will add their favourites.  Here are some starting points:

 

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

 

And here's an excellent, easy to read source on evolution:

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

It's also a good idea to debate heavy issues by email, or online somehow, rather than in real time. You need time to look things up and come back to them.

[Fweethawt]

 

This same concept applies during conversation... Bullshit easily flies out of anyone's mouth while speaking the truth requires planning and careful thought.

[00LukeMan]

Thanks for the quick response.

I definitely appreciate the difference in the foundations of creationism and actual science, but I need to deal with the actual argument they are making.

 

Perhaps I am just not looking hard enough, but I don't really know where to go. I don't think going directly to the peer-reviewed literature would be the best route because I often have a hard time understanding it, or even if I do, I have a hard time drawing meaningful conclusions from it. (Also it is often hard to access)

 

I suppose I am overwhelmed by the presenter's confidence, language and citations (rhetoric essentially). They are so sure of themselves, use scientific-sounding language and cite all sorts of studies. The article I linked to, for example, refers to many studies done by the author. I am not qualified to tell whether these were done correctly or lead to the conclusions which he draws from them. When someone who is qualified responds, that response will often be countered and I am not knowledgable enough to even know how to figure out who is right. I feel like I need doctorates in every subject to have a simple discussion.

 

For what it's worth, Durston (whose name I mispelled in the original post) claims a Ph.D in Biophysics from the University of Guelph (http://p2c.com/students/kirk-durston/about-kirk)

 

I've already done some reading on logical fallacies and cognitive bias and it's starting to get easier to spot, but it's still difficult and frustrating.

 

The conversation with my friend was over facebook rather than in person, so there is some time to find links and such.

[00LukeMan]

Also, I have been reading some on talk.origins and am halfway through Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. I find it convincing (much more than the creationism I was brought up with) and am not clear on why Durston thinks he's disproved evolution.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I was hoping I wouldn't have to click on this guy's link, but ok, I'll do it, lol.

 

Biophysics isn't evolutionary biology, btw.

 

It sounds like you have figured out the flaws in his arguments, but your interlocutor is refusing to accept that and is instead relying on an argument from authority, which I'm pretty sure won't stand up.  

[00LukeMan]

Sorry to inflict such a thing on you. Thanks for taking an interest though.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Ok I've read/skimmed the relevant info on his website, and I found it pretty pathetic.  His science credentials are completely irrelevant to his creationist beliefs.

 

I then googled "Kirk Durston debunked" (which is an excellent way to question claims like his) and it generated a long list of articles by skeptics and scientists that I'm sure would have deconstructed his claims really well.  But I'm not going to put more than a few minutes of my life into reading about this fool.

 

So I clicked on just one of the articles and found it was rich with information about him and his claims. If, after reading it, you still have some thoughts that there might be something in what he's saying, then I guess we have some more work to do.  

 

Durston may well be a "leading expert in his field" of protein structures but I don't need a PhD in anything to know that his PhD is recent, and he can only cite a handful of scholarly articles in that field... mate, it takes years and dozens of articles to even begin to be considered an expert in one's field, let alone a leading one.  Then we have the fact that he has made a completely unfounded leap from biophysics into evolutionary biology and claims to have all that figured out.  Durston does not appear to be currently employed in a public university plying his trade; instead his main career position for many years seems to have been with a xian organisation.  I could go on and on...

 

https://thestochasticman.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/kirk-durston-the-world%E2%80%99s-most-boring-creationist/

[DoubtingNate]

I think sometimes Creationists can be very clever at debating because the evidence for evolution comes from so many different fields of knowledge that it is hard to sum up in a debate format.  Creationists don't have any real evidence so they make up for it with rhetoric, which can be persuasive if you aren't already informed.  It is all smoke and mirrors and showbusiness though.  They are more like lawyers or PR specialists than scientists!

 

Have you see the Bill Nye vs. Ken Hamm debate?  It's quite revealing.  A big takeaway is that Kenn's position is completely non-falsifiable. There is nothing that could convince him otherwise; whereas most evolutionists can rattle off a list of things that would disprove the theory.. a famous example is rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian layer.  If you can stand listning to Mr. Hamm, it is a pretty great illustration of how hollow their arguments really are.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Here's another thing to watch out for, the gish gallop:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Luke, when I was a new Christian in college back in the early 70s (egad!), the same arguments against the TOE were put out there. I remember reading a book against evolution written by an engineer (usual shit, non-evolutionary biologist "debunking" evolution). He argued that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and then, the same argument as Durston, that mutations are generally harmful. He dismissed evidence of evolution as supporting "microevolution" only.

 

I am suspicious of the creationist's distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. As a layman in the field I am guessing that to admit microevolution is already fatal to creationism.

 

Creationists try to support their distinction by appealing to the genetic tendency of regression toward the mean, do they not? E.g. if two tall people have kids, their kids are likely to be as tall or shorter but not still taller - humans don't become 8 or 9 feet tall over time.

 

There is much to say against the above. It's like saying that the descendants of Eohippus would never stand 14-17 hands high.

 

Anyway, I earned a Ph.D. in Classics from a top research university and publish in refereed venues. My main area is textual criticism. It drives me crazy when people who lack proper training try to argue stuff like "The King James is more reliable because it's based on far more manuscripts, and the few old manuscripts that modern translations use are fakes or survived precisely because they were recognized as inaccurate and therefore not used, and didn't wear out." Where to start with such a person? But books are published pushing this very claim.

 

On another thread I quoted a smackdown of biblical inerrancy by a biblical scholar. He pointed out how the basic principle of inerrantist biblical interpretation is to preserve the doctrine of inerrancy. So ANY expedient will be found to try to explain away contradictions, errors, etc. Durston and your prof and your friend don't start out examining data and trying to formulate hypotheses. They start out with their born again experience and then leap to the (unfounded) conclusion that the Bible must be inerrant (I'm guessing this, don't know it about these guys), and then construct ANY argument necessary to reduce the cognitive dissonance that they must sense every time they just look around at the world and even at the Bible.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Here's another thing to watch out for, the gish gallop:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Good link, FTNZ! I didn't know this beloved technique of William Lane Craig has a name.

 

And after having spewed out a bunch of arguments in a debate, each of which would take a long time to deconstruct, Craig will say at the end, "And he (always a man as an opponent ... hmm) did not address AT ALL the argument that" blah blah.

[bornagainathiest]

Also, I have been reading some on talk.origins and am halfway through Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. I find it convincing (much more than the creationism I was brought up with) and am not clear on why Durston thinks he's disproved evolution.

 

Luke,

 

Many creationists think they've disproved evolution.  But what is usually the case is that they've simply proved that they don't really understand it.  Here's an example from Christianforums.com where a Creationist (Mattao) claims to have proven why evolution won't work and why natural selection will never be proven.  Another member (sfs) puts him right.

 

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-evolution-wont-work-and-natural-selection-will-never-be-proven.7893805/

 

Many creationists are horribly afraid of and angry with evolution and they'll go to any lengths to neutralize it's threat to their beliefs.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Castiel233]

Science, I would say, deals broadly with reality....creationists (and generally speaking, Christianity) deals with the Supernatural....and I am using the word "deals" loosely.

 

How can we know what is true.Generally speaking, something is true if it conforms to reality with an accepted consensus 

 

Reality:

 

Car has broken down, a part has worn out. A trip to the garage and after an examination, a new part is ordered and fitted. Car works as good as new

 

Not Reality:

 

Car has broken down, does it have a demon, is god angry with the driver, is he  being punished for the sins of his fore fathers. Prayer group is formed and laying on of hands arrives to heal car. Car does not recover. Car owner laments lack of faith, berates self for "letting down" Jesus    

 

 

Dealing with Christian Creationists, for a moment ..........if Yahweh is real, then the claims made for Him in The Bible should be universally true, prayers should be answered, the dead should rise again at the command of a preacher  and Christians should  be able to drink poison, unharmed and fly unaided....the fact that they cannot shows that Christianity (in part at least) is not true......

 

So many dimwits spend an awful amount of time trying to disprove evolution for the simple reason it remains one of the most potent arguments against their hateful religion.......Accepting for a moment, that Darwin was wrong, this does not mean that Christianity wins by default......although one assumes these grinning, slack jawed warriors for Christ haven't considered this. To them, its evolution versus Jesus ....and Jesus must win.......the fact that their own theology is riddled with holes( as well as being cruel and dangerous ) never seems to bother them....idiots   

[florduh]

For some, when reality does not match up with their beliefs they go to great lengths to disprove reality rather than examine their own faulty assumptions. This is the heart of Creationism.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Reality:

 

Car has broken down, a part has worn out. A trip to the garage and after an examination, a new part is ordered and fitted. Car works as good as new

 

Not Reality:

 

Car has broken down, does it have a demon, is god angry with the driver, is he  being punished for the sins of his fore fathers. Prayer group is formed and laying on of hands arrives to heal car. Car does not recover. Car owner laments lack of faith, berates self for "letting down" Jesus    

That's an excellent analogy.

[Castiel233]

 

Here's another thing to watch out for, the gish gallop:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Good link, FTNZ! I didn't know this beloved technique of William Lane Craig has a name.

 

And after having spewed out a bunch of arguments in a debate, each of which would take a long time to deconstruct, Craig will say at the end, "And he (always a man as an opponent ... hmm) did not address AT ALL the argument that" blah blah.

 

WLC is very easy to defeat:

 

1- The Bible says that believers can drink any poisonous thing unharmed

2- Hand WLC a drink of very poisonous thing at debate

3- Watch his face implode as he refuses challenge, and therefore must accept Bible  makes claim that are horse shit