An exercise in critical thinking

Faith & Science Conversation
21

Hi Randy, thanks for that.

1 Like
22

Thank you! I do think that treated correctly, everything we do believe can, and should, involve a critical exercise. Christianity (I am a Christian) should be questioned in appropriate settings, as should church leadership; and I believe that good questioning of the truth can only lead to trusting of the truth.
Thanks. I am interested in your thoughts in this way more, if you have some; I am learning from your conversation.

1 Like
23

You might want to send a message to Biologos staff to get their official response. I, personally, do not at all speak for Biologos. And I think most here are giving their personal answers apart from Biologos. I don’t know how the Biologos organization would answer that question.

I bring in other scientifically established theories as a comparison. If you aren’t going to use flat earth as such an exercise, why would you do the same with evolution? Or if you do use evolution as an exercise, why would you not also use flat earth for the same purpose? Both (EDIT: evolution and round earth) are well established scientific theories.

Now I do agree with others about discussing with my children how science works and how scientific knowledge changes in science. But I’m not into “teach the controversy”, since there is no controversy in the scientific academy. I likewise don’t “teach the controversy” of the shape of the earth.

I do also teach my kids our religious beliefs - that God is the Creator of all things, and all natural processes (including evolution) were created and are used by God. I wouldn’t think that should be taught in a public school though. It’s the parents’ job to teach that.

1 Like
24

Hi Randy, having been a committed atheist for most of my life, and then later discovering that I was deceived, I am keen to question all things. It concerns me when I am told that there are ideas or there are people that should not be questioned. For example, I have no doubt that Sir Francis Crick was a great scientist but when he said “biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved” I concluded that this isnt science but indoctrination. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue.

25

Hi Boscopup, ‘there is no controversy’ you say. This is a statement I repeatedly encounter when discussingt evolution - there is no controversy. I’m surprised that nobody sees a danger in this assertion.

26

Do you understand why, though? It has nothing to do with atheism or thinking that consensus science is irrefutable, or thinking children should not be taught critical thinking skills.

2 Likes
27

Hi Christy, Yes I do understand why atheists are so strongly opposed to it. I was one myself for a long time. The atheist has to cling onto the theory because for the atheist, evolution is the only acceptable explanation for our existence. So we shouldnt be surprised that they will do everything they can to convince people it’s true, whilst at the same time demonising anybody who dares to question it.

28

As it should. And I don’t think most of the responses you got above are saying that evolution is beyond question (certainly on its frontier edges). Its core is so well established that it won’t be overturned any more than we could hope to over turn our conclusion that the earth is round rather than flat (which is why people keep bringing that comparison to your attention - and rightly so.) It doesn’t mean that nothing in evolution’s core will ever be shaken - but if it is, it almost certainly won’t be shaken by those of us who don’t have the expertise to be contributors along its frontier edges.

If children (probably older ones) want to go through an exercise of examining evidences pertaining to evolution, then I for one think it could be an educational exercise for them. But I wouldn’t just give this as an unqualified “yes”, because for so many, such an exercise as they have in mind would more involve having children learning to parrot alleged problems with evolution for apologetic purposes, which, while this masquerades as critical thinking, is nearly the opposite.

If one can’t accept positive mountains of evidence, then their own alleged skepticism is in question since skepticism at its best implies a critical ability to discern between genuine evidence and unsupported argumentation. If either side of that discernment is missing, the skeptic has proven unable then to practice the critical thought required to earn such a label in its best sense. He is only able to reject or hold at arms length … everything … and accept nothing. That’s not a skeptic, but nothing more than a cynic whose doubts cannot be trusted; as they are the only things he is capable of possessing.

4 Likes
29

You seem to be saying that no such exercise could take place because it wouldnt be genuine, it would in effect be an exercise in deception. You can’t know this, you just assume it.

30

Until a scientifically valid opposing model is put forth that explains what evolutionary biology is able to explain, there is no controversy.

I certainly haven’t seen such a model from the YEC camp or the ID camp. And the YEC camp is going off the rails into ridiculousness with their flood geology and post flood hyperevolution hypotheses the last several years. Hearing some of that stuff at church is part of what made me question my religious leaders, ending up with me falling into atheism after several months of questioning everything I’d been taught. I had to work pretty hard to get past that. I’ve returned to Christianity, but it’s still sometimes difficult to separate the YEC stuff from everything else when listening to a preacher or class teacher at church. It’s taken a lot of one on one discussion with preacher and elders and class teachers to get to the point of trusting them again. They aren’t knowledgeable about science, and they rely on YEC books. One I read earlier this year, offered by my preacher during a discussion, I discovered the author was lying about research he was citing as the basis for his book. I read what the book author said and what the paper author said, and they were not compatible. I used that book as a teaching moment to my 15 year old. Don’t just blindly read these things and believe someone because they have a PhD. Read the studies they’re citing. Are they misrepresenting the studies? In this case, the answer was very much yes.

3 Likes
31

I agree, which is why I couldn’t give the original question a “simple yes or no” because there are many different factors involved. “Critical thinking” was emphasized by some of the leaders in the homeschool movement, but often it was just a euphemism for “parrot back our views to us.” We were taught evolution was a “theory in crisis” when it’s not – not that that means there aren’t still questions or problems to be worked through.

3 Likes
32

Why can’t I know this? While I myself am not a scientist examining fossils or genomes, I nonetheless have read conclusions about all those things from many, many trustworthy sources. I’ve also read much from communities that wish to dispute those conclusions, to see if their arguments carry good weight that can persist through critical examination. And nearly everything I’ve encountered fails even that. But even if something does stick as a problem, it finds its refuge only in mystery and darkness (e.g. they haven’t completely explained x, y or z) and does not itself come close to rising to the level of providing a rival theory that can explain everything better than than the theory which they hope to see overturned.

1 Like
33

Boscopup, glad to hear you got back. Just to be clear, I study all sides of the argument and it’s kept me busy for years. You mention a book written by a Christian who you say was telling lies. This is a serious accusation because the bible says that all liars will have their place in the lake of fire. I would need to be very sure before I would accuse a Christian brother or sister of lying. Having said that, I have no problem with people strongly disagreeing with me when we enter into a debate. It’s good that we have (at the moment) the opportunity to speak freely. Blessings to you all.

1 Like
34

Hi Laura, ok well let’s just imagine that the exercise would be run by people who have no agenda - either for or against. Would you be willing for it to go ahead or not?

35

Hi Mervin I think you’ve misunderstood me. I’m not talking about your knowledge of the physical evidence, I’m talking about whoever would run the study.

36

I asked if you understood why atheists AND BioLogos are opposed to it, so an understanding rooted in atheism is obviously not the right explanation since BioLogos is not a bunch of atheists. I think it is a lie from ID that scientists are trying to convince people of scientific facts because they are motivated by atheism and existential concerns. Facts about the world are facts about the world, independent of your metaphysics. Anyone is allowed to question evolution. What they aren’t allowed to do in schools is present something that isn’t science as science. If ID can ever manage to actually come up with a legitimately competitive scientific model, they could present it. But all they have is rhetoric and philosophy and insinuations about the motivations of scientists.

3 Likes
37

Fair enough. So, if I understand you correctly, you are wondering if the researchers/scientists who are producing/evaluating such evidence can be trusted to be engaging in sufficiently critical thought?

That is indeed the warp and woof of science. They don’t always do it sufficiently, of course, which is what peer-review, repeatability, and falsifiability are all about. They generally do these things far better than non-scientific people like myself do - especially in their area of expertise. They don’t like getting embarrassed any more than any of us do … professional embarrassment being much worse than small daily embarrassments we all suffer. And in the profession as a whole, there will always be those gunning to produce that new theory - so; yes, as far as critical thinking goes, I do trust that practitioners in the scientific professions generally engage in a very high level of it. Not infallible, of course; but much less likely to be wrong than most of us if we were speculating about such things apart from their work.

1 Like
38

These are the kind of critical thinking skills we should be teaching students. They are not going to be qualified to evaluate the science itself, but they can certainly be taught to evaluate sources, check credentials, fact check, identify logical fallacies, and know the difference between subjective and objective claims.

5 Likes
39

Leaving aside whether “agenda-less” is possible, then perhaps some mature high schoolers would be at a point where they could learn critical analysis by looking at various scientific theories like evolution. Since well-established theories have so much evidence that they work to explain, which would take a long time to cover, high school students might be out of their depth – I don’t know – I’m not a teacher.

40

Hi Mike,

If someone wants to critique evolution, they need to stick to certain rules in doing so. These rules include, but are not limited to, the following:

  1. They must make sure that they are critiquing what real scientists teach about evolution, and not some kind of inaccurate cartoon caricature of it. If they describe evolution as “a cat turning into a dog,” for example, that will just make them look clueless if not dishonest.
  2. Their descriptions of the evidence must be accurate. They must account for all of the evidence, and they must not claim that any of it does not exist when quite clearly it does. Bear in mind that there is much more than just transitional fossils to be accounted for – they have to account for other factors, such as genetic evidence (e.g. endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes).
  3. They need to remember that errors in small details do not falsify the bigger picture. Similarly, if they want to play the “fraud” card, they need to be able to demonstrate that all evolutionary results are fraudulent and not just a tiny minority of them.
  4. If they want to play the “microevolution versus macroevolution” card, they need to be able to provide positive evidence for the existence of a clear boundary between the two.
  5. They must make sure that any quotes that they use accurately reflect the context from which they were taken. It is not acceptable to quote people out of context in ways that misrepresent them.

Actually, it is possible to come up with some specific criteria by which we can assess whether or not someone is lying. In particular, if they are making claims that can clearly be shown to be untrue, and if they know, or should reasonably be expected to know, that the claims that they are making are untrue, then that is lying, and should be confronted as such, end of story.

Bear in mind too that anyone who sets themselves up as a teacher, whether in church or in any other context, should be held to a higher standard in this respect. James 3:1 tells us that teachers will be subject to stricter judgment, and with good reason. Teachers are in a position of trust, and as such they have an extra duty of care to make sure that the information they are teaching is honest and accurate. It is a serious breach of trust for a teacher to fail to pay due care and attention to the factual accuracy of what they are teaching.

5 Likes