Listened To
April 29th, 2006
This is my weekly artists chart from last.fm. It’s not completely accurate, as I strip artist info from most podcasts and whatever I listen to on the iPod isn’t sent, but here it is in any case:
Archive
Archive for April, 2006
Skeptical
April 6th, 2006
The mechanics of science is really outside the scope of what I want to discuss on my site. This is done very well around the net, at sites like this, this, and this. I’m chiefly concerned with my own work, such as it is, and don’t have time to become a scientist just like Mom wanted. But I’ve been fascinated by science all my life, and this fascination led me to skepticism.
Defining skepticism can be a bit dodgy. Skepticism, like science, operates on the weight of evidence. Also, the default position regarding claims made about reality (e.g., aliens are intensely interested in the mysteries of the human anus) is abstention. This is unusual for some, but that’s the reason it requires examination and discussion.
This is the first post of many I will write that contribute to a larger project, chiefly for the novice skeptic who wants to learn more about it. Be prepared for me to grow this project in halting fits and starts, with much rambling and wordiness.
Proponents of Intelligent Design make a big deal of claims like, “a growing number of scientists question the evidence for evolution and its ability to explain the origin of life.”
A couple of things are wrong with statements like this. First, it’s as may be that there are a “growing number” espousing ID, but then there are also a growing number of Scientologists, radical Islamists, and people who believe Bill Gates will send them cash for forwarding e-mails. Does that mean we should give credence to those ideas, or that we should be cautious when people tout growth and ignore proportion? In answer to this claim, the NCSE started Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who agree that the Theory of Evolution is a robust, well-supported collection of principles with broad explanatory power. By doing this, they show that not only is it silly to stake your claim merely on the number who agree with you, but at the same time show that the vast majority of scientists who work in the field in question (about 1% of scientists are estimated to be named Steve, or some variant such as Stephen, Stephanie, etc., and the majority on the list are biologists) accept evolution. I think most reasonable people would agree that those who work in a particular field are most qualified to judge the worth of the theories and practices of that field. Even so, there is a massive amount of evidence supporting evolution from geology, paleontology, microbiology, genetics, and others.
Second, it’s important to keep in mind that no theory in science attempts to explain everything. The Big Bang Theory isn’t part of evolution, nor is plate tectonics. Science is done in chunks, and although one bit may support another, it’s not a requirement. To say that because evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life it’s invalid is to misunderstand science. Evolution is an explanation for the commonality of life (our shared DNA) and the biodiversity we observe. It’s a collection of principles regarding what happened (and is still happening) to life once it appeared and started reproducing. The field that examines life’s origins from a natural standpoint is called abiogenesis.