Do you recall whether she simply didn’t believe dinosaurs had ever existed, or did she believe they’d lived alongside humans? I live in Tennessee, home of the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, and a place where, nearly ninety years later, it still sometimes seems to be going on. Growing up I knew people from my grandmother to some of my science teachers who explained that the Earth was far too young for dinosaurs to have preceded the appearance of humans, but I never heard anyone deny the actual existence of dinosaurs.
What’s interesting about the Scopes Trial, and what I think makes it somewhat instructive regarding the issue of climate change, is that it happened at a time when the status quo was changing, and there were even some economic factors. At its very simplest level both the debate over evolution and the debate over climate change is a clash between those who want to maintain a mythical past and those who see potential in accepting change.
The new Atheist advocates and intellectuals make this even worse by convincing people who aren’t actually young earth creationists that “evolution”(Meaning anything that means the earth is more than 6K years old) disproves and renders their faith false. The religious who believe as I do, have done an absolutely terrible job of informing that significant middle ground about how silly that idea is.
The problem is that there really isn’t a “middle ground”. The science of evolution doesn’t just show that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old – it shows that the mechanism of evolution is a completely natural stochastic process. The “New Atheists” have a point in that religious people who claim to believe in evolution but believe that their god(s) were behind the scene pushing it along aren’t very different from those who believe that life poofed into existence by divine will – they are still attributing the effects of natural forces to supernatural forces.
Last time it came up here on BB, I had people claiming to have PhDs and understand the scientific method, spouting outright lies, not knowing what a p-value was when I actually pulled the data from NASA’s website and ran the statistics to debunk their lies, and then doubling down and actually providing links which wound up saying the opposite of what they claimed when I read them.
I can name a handful of “new atheist advocates” who make that connection part of their message.
On the other hand, virtually every fundamentalist who has spoken or written on the subject of evolution has made that connection in order to “prove” to their audience that they must choose between religion and science, that there is no way to have both in their lives.
There are religious moderates trying to get the word out, and the Pope of course, but generally speaking it’s the fundamentalists in all versions of Christianity that set up the either/or stance.
I met a retired engineer in Ohio who unironically INSISTED that we had to visit the Creation Museum across the river in Kentucky. It rattled me more than I would have predicted. I just could not wrap my head around how he could hold both idea simultaneously.
I really can’t recall what her exact views on dinosaurs were. But I can tell you that the way she talked about it was as if it was some childishly hilarious thing to believe in, like… I don’t know, Santa, or something. If she simply believed that dinosaurs had existed alongside humans, I don’t think she would have asked me “You really believe dinosaurs existed?”.
Client change denialism is terrible and hinders important progress, but the same anti-science and and-intellectual forces can do such damage in other areas. In my opinion, the anti-evolution view that is so prominent in much of America is dangerous: it’s not just about the wonderfulness of science, evolution is tied to everything we and the nature are. Evolution is what makes resilient “superbugs” - or do these anti-evolution people just not care?
This territory was pioneered by big tobacco quite a while ago. From their perspective, it’s a simple numerical calculation. What will it cost them to adapt to a new reality, and what will it cost them to warp public reality to keep their position? The nuclear industry, big pharma, big agra, they are all playing off the same book.
Back when it was merely the ozone layer at risk, the numbers came out differently, and industry bowed to the inevitable. But the costs (and risks) for this one are so much bigger, they’ve bet the farm. Everybody’s farm.
It’s not Christian Fundamentalism that’s at work here, it’s Fundamentalist Capitalism.
G AWE D almost two full syllables.I can’t properly explain it and couldn’t find a Youtube video with an example before I started to get a rash from exposure to fundie preachers, sorry.
Don’t worry, “they” have an argument ready for this one. The first person I met who didn’t believe in evolution explained to me that “micro-evolution” was completely logical. “Of course a group of fish in one lake in Africa might grow to have different shapes based on various features of their surroundings, but monkeys into people, HA!”. Yep, micro-evolution is “logical” but “macro-evolution” is not.
Got this from a coworker. I was flabbergasted. I also had problems articulating why because I was so takrn aback. I reccomend this book to anyone having to make the case:
Butbutbut… macro-evolution is just micro-evolution in the long run. I’ve noticed that the people who don’t believe in evolution just don’t understand it. At all.
That’s a great book. I also recommend some of Richard Dawkins’s books if you want to make a convincing argument. I know his name alone can cause a lot of anger and backlash, but he has a really good way of articulating these things. I’m not talking about The God Delusion, but his other books like the Selfish Gene and my personal favorites, Unweaving The Rainbow and The Blind Watchmaker. Lots of good arguments and beautiful descriptions of life there.
There are monied parties with a vested interest in demonizing this “good material”.
So, I have no doubt many people of influence willfully spout anti-science rhetoric they do not believe in all in the service of capitalism --or whatever “ism” it is in their interest to support.
No disagreement here. Capitalism will ruthlessly trample over anything socially or scientifically important if it serves its interests. Sure, capitalism has sometimes resulted in progress in science, but it has also done the opposite just as many times.
