Evolution is Not...

This post is not intended to address creationists but rather people who just haven't studied evolution in depth, or have only a passing familiarity with it.  During a discussion with an acquaintance recently, I was reminded how the average person doesn't have a clear concept of evolution.  Misconceptions are so common and so often repeated it's no wonder even people who accept evolution as a sound scientific theory can sometimes be confused.



*  Biological evolution does not mean simply "changes over time."

Lots of things change over time, but they might not be evolving. Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.

*  Evolution, as a whole, is not a random process.

Some elements of evolution are random - mutation, for instance.  But other important mechanisms, like natural selection, are not random at all.   Natural selection favors organisms that are better suited to their environment - that's the opposite of random.

*  Evolution does not address the origin of life, that field of study is called abiogensis.

Evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after it began. Regardless of whether life was planted by aliens, a divine being, or an asteroid, it doesn't change the fact that it evolved afterward.

*  Evolution is not about progress or improvement. 

1) All an organism has to be is good enough to survive, not necessarily better. A "C"student still passes. 2) Factors in evolution like mutation, migration and genetic drift can cause populations to evolve in ways that are not helpful or progressive, and in fact can be harmful. 3) The traits that make a population successful in one environment may be a hindrance when the climate changes, or when new competitors move in.

*  Evolution does not have a goal, a purpose or intent.

It describes the process by which populations are modified by their circumstances over many generations.    

 
*  Humans, as a species have not stopped evolving.

We have evidence of recent evolutionary changes among populations, including mutations that allow people to digest milk or resist malaria and others that govern brain development.

Religious Liberty or The War On Women?

The war on women being waged by the Religious Right and their conservative cronies is in high gear.  Now they have their panties all knotted up about birth control.  The Catholic Church is whining about their religious freedom and the First Amendment as if it legitimately applies in this case. Let me explain why I don't think it does.

*  *  *

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

*  *  *

So how exactly does requiring insurance companies to provide no-cost contraception violate the First Amendment?  The Bishops contend that as employers providing health insurance for their employees they have to pay the premiums that include covering contraception.  

And that violates their right to exercise their religion freely in what way?  Does the mandate require the Bishops to use contraception against their will?  Does it force anyone to use a condom?  Hmm, no.  Does it require birth control pills to be passed with the collection plate?  Not that I can tell. 

Does the mandate establish an official religion?  Does it prohibit people from freely practicing their religion?  No and no.  Oh but the conservatives disagree - they say that by forcing Catholic employers to provide insurance that includes contraception coverage they are making them (indirectly) pay for something they don't believe in.  Huh.  Seems similar to people who have to pay taxes that, in part, pay for executions they don't believe in.

But this isn't a fight demanded by the flock, this comes straight from upper management.   The vast majority of Catholics have used some form of birth control other than natural family planning.  And even if that wasn't the case, most people understand that in order to live peaceably in a civil society everyone has to sometimes make concessions.  It's a social contract.  Your rights end where someone else's begin.  Common sense really.

In response to the "outrage" by what appears to be a few old, celibate, white guys and their pet politicians, the Obama Administration revised the mandate.  The revision provides that if an employer declines contraception coverage on the basis of their religious beliefs, the insurance company will have to provide the coverage to the employees free of charge.  Employees get coverage no matter where they work, and the religious employers don't have to pay for it.

So there.  All better.  

But that's not enough!  It's not enough to merely get what they wanted, now they have all sorts of vague reasons why they still aren't happy.  Their grumblings are mostly about an unclear notion of "religious liberty" and... well, that's it.  So in reality these folks just aren't going to be satisfied if they can't impose their particular brand of "religious liberty" on others.

First, I have to wonder why we, as a society, should be taking moral advice from an organized pedophilia ring.  But besides the obvious, why are we giving special rights to an antiquated religious doctrine that not only doesn't apply in the 21st Century, but is actually harmful to society?  We have been teetering on the brink of economic disaster worldwide, millions of people on government assistance and record unemployment.  We should be encouraging contraception, not trying to prevent it!

Unfortunately, the Church doesn't make decisions based on common sense, or with the best interests of society in mind.  Their decisions were made two millenia ago by Iron Age misogynists and they see no reason to change now.  It's not about being fruitful and multiplying (7 Billion people - I think we got this!), it's about controlling and oppressing women - it always has been.  No matter how they dress it up and parade Jesus around in it, it's not about loving babies or the sanctity of life, it's about keeping married women pregnant and punishing single women for having sex.

Funny how the meaning of the word "liberty" changes when you put "religious" in front of it.

Debating on the Interwebs? Get Your Fallacies Here.

These are the most common fallacies I see during philosophical discussions or debates on the internet.  One day I hope to have learned these by heart, but until then this will serve as a reference.

Argument from Ignorance:  assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).  I believe in Leprechauns because no one has been able to prove they aren't real.

Begging the Question/ Circular Reasoning:  where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises.

     The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause called God. (Begging the question)
This assumes that a) the universe has a beginning; and b) everything that begins requires a cause.

     The Bible is true because God exists, and God exists because the Bible says so. (Circular reasoning)


Shifting the Burden of Proof:  I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.  Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

Circular Cause & Consequence:  where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.  As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply. Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning.

Equivocation:  the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).  The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there.

False Dilemma / False Dichotomy:  two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.  America: Love it or leave it.


Loaded Question:  someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.  Have you stopped beating your wife?

False Attribution:  when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

Moving the Goalposts:  argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.  Some of the stories in the Bible may not be true, but how does that prove God doesn't exist?

Post hoc: X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.  Roosters crow just before the sun rises. Therefore, roosters crowing cause the sun to rise.

Red Herring: a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument.  I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems.

Regression Fallacy:  ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations and a tendency toward the mean. Speed cameras are often installed after a road incurs an exceptionally high number of accidents, and this value usually falls (regression to mean) immediately afterwards. Many speed camera proponents attribute this fall in accidents to the speed camera, without observing the overall trend.

Retrospective Determinism:  the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.  When he declared himself dictator of the Roman Republic, Julius Caesar was bound to be assassinated.

Special Pleading / Double Standard:  where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.  I'm not relying on faith in small probabilities here. These are slot machines, not roulette wheels. They are different.

No true Scotsman:  attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing.  The 9/11 terrorists were not true Muslims.


Cherry Picking:  act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

False Analogy: the analogy is poorly suited.  Clogged arteries require surgery to clear them; our clogged highways require equally drastic measures.

Ad hominem: attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Well, you're a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument.

Poisoning the well:  a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says. Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.

Appeal to Majority: where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.  Christianity is the world's largest religion, so it must be correct.

Association Fallacy: arguing that because two things share a property they are the same. Stalin was an atheist that had millions of people killed therefore atheism is evil.

Appeal to Authority:  where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it, but the person in question is not a legitimate expert. These pills must be safe and effective for losing weight. They have been endorsed by Miss X, star of stage, screen, and television.

Appeal to Emotion:  where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.  I believe in the afterlife because it makes me less afraid to die.

Appeal to Tradition:  a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.  These rules were written 100 years ago and we have always followed them. Therefore, there is no need to change them.

Nazi Card:  comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled.

Straw Man:  an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.  Senator Bob Smith wants to reduce military spending.  He won't be happy until America is completely defenseless!