What Do UT Southwestern Scientists Think?
Recently, Steve Blow of The Dallas Morning News wrote a column on the results of an informal survey he gave to the sixteen faculty members at the UT Southwestern Medical School who have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Steve Blow said he was looking for a "Mr. Wizard" to help sort out controversies over subjects like evolution, global warming, and human stem cell research.
It turns out that all of the scientists believe in evolution and all but one believe in human evolution. 43% of the general public do not. There were similar discrepancies in attitudes towards global warming and stem cell research.
Steve Blow concludes by saying, "I don't imagine this is going to end any debates. But it's nice to know what our best science minds are thinking."
Brian Thomas, "Science Writer" for the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research, takes Steve Blow to task in an essay published on the Creationists' Web site.
Thomas dismisses the sixteen top biomedical researchers for not being qualified, as if these members of the National Academy of Sciences know little more about the subject than the average car mechanic. Or real estate agent. Thomas says asking biomedical researchers' opinions on evolution is the same as asking sixteen real estate executives to guess Thomas' personal bank account balance. Thomas points out logical fallacies in Steve Blow's essay. Maybe Thomas can reread his own words and recognize an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Thomas argues that truth is not determined by majority vote. Thank God. Public opinion is far from knowledgeable about scientific matters. Ironically, Thomas then argues that more Americans believe in Creationism than Steve Blow reported, as if it matters whether it's Blow's report of 43% or Thomas' claim of 66%. Both numbers are embarrassingly large. Truth isn't determined by majority vote, remember? Steve Blow goes to the experts.
Thomas accuses Steve Blow of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. D'oh. Steve Blow admitted that's just what he was doing. He was looking for Mr. Wizard's opinion. Although authority doesn't prove truth or falsehood, it's generally a good working hypothesis until you have the time and inclination to personally repeat the research that led the experts to their conclusion. Thomas himself is guilty of a logical fallacy by implying that because an assertion originated from an expert, that that is a reason to disregard it. It isn't.
Thomas argues that just because scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution as a sound scientific theory, that doesn't mean it should be taught in science classes. Thomas doesn't say what we should teach instead. If not science, what?
Thomas tries to paint evolution as religion, not science. He claims evolution answers the "big questions of origin, purpose, and destiny." In fact, it does no such thing. Evolution has nothing to say about any of these questions. That's what religion is all about. And it's what Brian Thomas is interested in. He concludes by saying,
"We propose that there is overwhelming historical evidence that empirical scientists have been trained to reject -- the recorded eyewitness testimony to the original events of creation, the Flood, and the dispersion found in Genesis."
That's right. Thomas' source is the Bible. This is Thomas' own appeal to authority. Thomas should know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Science relies on the formulation and testing of hypotheses through repeatable experimentation, not on revealed truth about conversations in the Garden of Eden. And you don't need sixteen eminent members of the National Academy of Sciences to tell you that.
2 comments:
Thomas said "We propose that there is overwhelming historical evidence that empirical scientists have been trained to reject."
He says this like its a bad thing, hidden, or part of some nefarious agenda.
Being trained to reject things that aren't regarded rightly as repeatable, open, testable and objective evidence is part of this little ole thing called "science." Perhaps Thomas might have heard of it.
Thanks for the comment. I think Brian Thomas implies that scientists unjustly reject Biblical accounts out of hand. And that would be wrong.
But, on the contrary, scientists do seriously study sources such as ancient manuscripts. They are particularly valuable for gaining insights into ancient history. For explanations of geology, biology, astronomy, physics, ... well, not so much. If the ancient myths don't stand up to testable, repeatable, empirical study, the ancient myths are rightly rejected.
Maybe Brian Thomas can imagine for us some experimental results, if they could be obtained, that would lead him to reject his belief in Creationism. If he can't do that even in theory, he isn't talking science.
Post a Comment