I have just completed four years in an engineering program in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I thought that at least within the halls of a science-oriented program I would be insulated from the un-critical, un-supported notions of young earth creationism. I was wrong.
Unfortunately, with just 2 weeks to go before the end of the year, my professor of River Engineering decides to totally destroy his credibility by revealing that he is an anti-evolutionist. We had just arrived at the ecosystem restoration part of the class, and he began to struggle through the description of species’ interactions within a river.
It had started innocently enough, with the discussion of flood analysis, critical depths, flood plain progressions etc. But as we were entering the home stretch he began to make mistakes that would only be permissible if he was, perhaps, not a science educator.
He’s Uninformed and He Doesn’t Care
I guess that I can’t really fault him for not understanding evolutionary theory, as he is primarily an engineering professor. But because he decided to include aspects of biology into his curriculum, I feel that he has a duty to present the scientifically supported facts, and not his own irrational interpretations of something that he obviously knows very little about. I may seem a little vindictive here, but this is for two reasons: first, he obviously did not care that he was getting evolution wrong ( I think he liked it), and second, he was trying to present biological ideas while at the same time denying the central theme of biology. As a service to evolution and my readers, let’s take his misconceptions one by one and explain where he went wrong, and what is possibly behind these misconceptions. You can see the discussion of other misconceptions about evolution here and here and here.
My professor’s little diatribe about the “faults” of evolution was in relation to the complexity of ecosystems. He was in a state of disbelief about how all the relationships between predator and prey and environment could have come about. He made the following remarks:
This is why I don’t really agree with the theory of evolution. They expect us to believe that trillions of years ago, all these relationships developed simultaneously, and completely by accident.
I count four total misconceptions, so let’s take these in order:
“I don’t really agree with the theory of evolution…”
His emphasis here on the word “theory” is probably the most common talking point of anti-evolutionists. The misconception here is that theory means the same thing to science that is does in colloquial use. It does not. Theory, in a scientific sense, does not mean merely an educated guess. To science, A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
A theory is not a guess, it is the best explanation for a certain set of phenomena, in this case biological diversity, supported by observable evidence and scientific law. Let me put it this way, gravity is also a “just a theory”.
This common kind of dismissal, based upon the fact that creationists don’t know the definitions of words, is indicative of a deeper distrust of science and scientists in general.
“…trillions of years ago…”
This is just plain wrong. Apparently, just getting the time line of evolution isn’t enough, he overestimates what science has agreed upon as the beginning of biological evolution (3.8 billion years ago), by around 263 times the age of the universe!!
“…all these relationships developed simultaneously…”
Evolution doesn’t work all at once. It is interesting that he first mistakes over how long evolution has been happening, then he expects it to happen all at the same time. The reason that the relationships between animals and other animals, animals and plants, plant and environment etc., are so intricate and well-developed is because they have been interacting and refining those relationships for billions of years. The feedback loop of natural selection selects those traits which produce said relationships exactly because they work. Billions of years ago, these relationships must have been very rough or non-existent. But, over time, nature selected those interactions, produced by random mutations in the gene pool, that helped the organisms survive. It would be easy to see then, how a few billion years and billions of generations of genes could produce the delicate and intricate relationships that we see today.
The more complex the web, the more it blows creationist’s minds
We are privy to the best which nature has to offer, but we must realize that we are looking at only a minuscule portion of the timeline. If we look at the whole of biological time, the intricate relationships we now see are only the tip of a much larger iceberg of mutation, reproduction, and survival-based selection processes.
It is easy for us to look at the world and marvel at its complexity. But it would be ignorant of us, however, to ignore the billions of years of history that we are not apart of, and assume that everything happened at once.
“…and completely by accident.”
The diversity of biology, and the complexity of interaction between biotic and abiotic factors is certainly no accident. There is a very good reason why plants are green, or how salmon know exactly where to spawn, or why animals and plants interact in the seamless ways that they do. Everything has been selected. Plants are green because the chlorophyll within their cells will absorb the strongest wavelengths of light that the Sun puts out, and reflects the others (green wavelength light). Salmon know the best places to spawn because there was a mutation which allowed salmon to more accurately select nesting areas, and this trait was passed along by the surviving salmon.
My point is this: The reason that biology works so well with itself and with the environment is because there is a natural feedback system, namely evolution, that selects what works and discards what does not work. The reason that all these amazing relationships between our world are so “perfect” is because all of the animals and plants who interacted in less “perfect” ways have died, unable to pass along their genes and traits.
Stick to Your Field
Misconceptions like these are the reason that engineering professors don’t teach biology 101. If you are not informed about the subject well enough to teach it, well enough to get the central theory of the entire discipline wrong, well enough not to interject your inane, fundamental right-wing nonsense, then don’t even try. Just leave it out; it’s better than butchering it. It makes you sound ignorant, and out of your element. You should really stick to your field.
Engineers have a habit of seeing a design in everything. In this case, this means that everything in biology looks designed to my professor, and because he cannot recognize that simple engineering common sense does not substitute for rigorous science, he was lead into the gibberish that is creationism.
I should have realized his views a long time ago, when I would go into his office and Rush Limbaugh was playing all day… It’s funny how politics can substitute for scientific fact sometimes. Funny, and very sad. But the great thing about science is that you don’t have to believe in it for it to be true.
My goodness Mr. Hill, where do I start?
Such a vicious, hateful and personal attack on one of your professors, a man who (hopefully) has dedicated his professional life to imparting some knowledge to his students. Hopefully, other students will have a more favorable remembrance of lessons learned under his tutelage. You state that ’I may seem a little vindictive here.’ Mr. Hill you are very, very vindictive here! Mr. Hill, have you no shame?
You complain that you thought ‘ … I would be insulated from the un-critical, un-supported notions of young earth creationism. I was wrong.’ Indeed Mr. Hill you were wrong. You have closed your mind to any view of reality other than your own. Did it occur to you that this professor may have been well versed in the issue of creation vs. evolution; that he may have thought through his view and much like Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith came to the conclusion that Darwinian thought is irrational. Did you even sit down with him, and in a thoughtful and inquisitive manner, seek to understand his view? Do you know that his views were un-critical and un-supported? Or were you just looking for a launch point for your own’ little diatribe?’
You complain of ‘his own irrational interpretations of something that he obviously knows very little about.’ Have you ever heard of Dr. A.E. Winder-Smith, and have you read his little allegory ‘He Who Thinks Has To Believe?’ Before you dismiss him as a young earth creationist, and therefore not a scientist, let me show you his resume:
Creationist, Chemist, & Lecturer
Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 “Golden Apple” awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
NATO three-star general
Deceased
Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film and video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be
In ‘He Who Thinks Has To Believe’, Dr. Smith forcefully addresses the issue of irrationality in the beliefs of creationists vs. evolutionists. It’s a small but powerful book, and I encourage you to read it. If you do, be warned that it could shake your ‘faith’ to the very core. If you choose not to read it, at least know that he is one of many scientists who come to decidedly different conclusions than you. As you see in Wilder-Smith’s resume, he has many years as a practicing organic chemist, presumable one who was very conversant in the scientific method.
Regarding ‘theory,’ you state ‘This common kind of dismissal, based upon the fact that creationists don’t know the definitions of words, is indicative of a deeper distrust of science and scientists in general.’ How condescending of you to ascribe such views to working scientists in many fields; scientists such as Wilder-Smith in organic chemistry and pharmacology, Michael Behe in micro-biology, Dr. Henry Morris is geology and many others. The book “Scientists Who Believe” is just one source where you can find others. Further, did you know that the founders of most modern fields of science were Bible believing Christians?
Your cute little poster “Because Desert Goat Herders Living in Tents 3000 Years Ago Knew More About The Cosmos And Biology Than Modern Day Scientists” says to me that you war not against creationism and creationists, but war against God himself. Open this book of the ‘goat herders’ yourself and feast on the wonders therein. You may be greatly and pleasantly surprised. I did, and was wonderfully surprised.
Yes,’ Engineers have a habit of seeing a design in everything,’ after all, that is what they do. They design and build. Rather than launching into yet another academic endeavor, I recommend that you really get your hands dirty for 10 years or so (you’re young, you can afford the time) and program some very complex software and experience design for yourself. Or, work side by side with a micro-biologist that can show you personally the machines extant within the cell.
So I take it that Rush Limbaugh is not a scientist either? Why in the hell did you put that in your ‘little diatribe?’’
Kyle my young friend, I hope you are still with me. I’m trying my darndest to hit you up-side the head and knock some common sense and humility into you. And I don’t diminish you because of your youth; one of my all time heroes was a young 19 year old by the name of Alexander Hamilton; wise beyond his years and the closest confident of George Washington during the Revolution, and during the Washington presidency. Kyle I see a lot of brilliance in you, and a lot of potential, but also a lot of arrogance. Use your talents wisely, and for good cause.
I close with the following:
“Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.”
Fear here being translated as reverential awe.
Best regards,
Don Johnson
Hi, I know this is an old post but I just found your blog. Like the previous commenter I believe in God, but unlike the previous commenter I don’t think you were too harsh on your professor at all. I’m no scientist but I have a grasp of some of the basic ideas behind the theory of evolution (and I worked out for myself that ‘theorise’ doesn’t mean ‘hazard an unfounded guess’). If even I can understand the basics, then there is no excuse for someone who is certainly far more intelligent than me, like your professor, to make those kinds of mistakes. I remember a friend once said to me something like ‘if evolution is true, then how come a flagellum has a tail that can help it swim up to 60 mph, and we don’t? I thought creatures further up the evolutionary scale were supposed to be an improvement!’ That’s a very common misconception about evolution, because it’s difficult for us to imagine the idea of the process not having a fixed end point or desired outcome. Combined with the difficulty we have in imagining billions of years, it’s ripe for misunderstanding. I think high school biology is good at illuminating the process of evolution but probably inadequate in conveying the undirected nature of it.