As a Druid, Can You Believe in Evolution?

[Treeshrew]

I agree, Whitemane, that evolution does not tell us about the origin of life, but I actually hope we do come to know that scientifically one day (and with the synthetic biology experiments of Craig Venter et al., I think that day might be sooner rather than later). I don't think that understanding would lessen the magic of being alive, but add to it, just as for me, understanding how we are related to all other living things makes me more aware of the inter-connected web of life and it's beauty. I think a lot of people take the view of Keats, that science will 'unweave the rainbow', but Richard Feynman has a great quote that shows the opposite view:

“I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.”

[Twyrch]

I was raised as a Fundy Christian, so I naturally believed in the literal 6 day creation story. Now that I've gone through the course work, I still can't imagine that everything in nature was created by chance. I believe there was an intelligent design at work in the beginning. My beliefs are more along the line of Theistic Evolution: the universe and our world was created by an intelligent design, but over time, that design evolved into what it is today. Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution. I don't think evolution should be taken out of schools, but I do think all theories should be taught and children should be allowed to think for themselves. Indoctrinating kids with evolution is just as bad as indoctrinating them with creationism. Teach, don't indoctrinate. That's my 2 cents.

[Treeshrew]

I see you point, Twyrch, and of course you are free to believe as you see fit, but I must disagree with you here.

The thing is, evolution is precisely not a chance process. Natural selection ensures the survival of creatures best adapted to their environment, it isn't random at all. Nor does evolution have anything to do with the origin of life, it only tells us what happened once life got going. We are able to have our pet ideas and guesses about how life began (abiogenesis, aliens, gods), but the truth is we don't know (yet).

The distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution is largely a red herring put out there by fundamentalist creationists who want to argue that evolution cannot produce new species. Given enough time, those tiny 'micro' changes we observe within species add up, and from our position of hindsight, appear to be 'macro' changes. It's the same process.

When you say 'all theories should be taught', which ones? The Norse creation myths? The Greek? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do you extend this to other subjects in schools as well? Should the stork theory be taught alongside reproduction? Teaching evolution is not about 'indoctrination', it's about science teachers teaching science. Schools should teach well supported, evidence-based facts, which is what evolution is.

[Twyrch]

I see you point, Twyrch, and of course you are free to believe as you see fit, but I must disagree with you here.

The thing is, evolution is precisely not a chance process. Natural selection ensures the survival of creatures best adapted to their environment, it isn't random at all. Nor does evolution have anything to do with the origin of life, it only tells us what happened once life got going. We are able to have our pet ideas and guesses about how life began (abiogenesis, aliens, gods), but the truth is we don't know (yet).

The distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution is largely a red herring put out there by fundamentalist creationists who want to argue that evolution cannot produce new species. Given enough time, those tiny 'micro' changes we observe within species add up, and from our position of hindsight, appear to be 'macro' changes. It's the same process.

When you say 'all theories should be taught', which ones? The Norse creation myths? The Greek? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do you extend this to other subjects in schools as well? Should the stork theory be taught alongside reproduction? Teaching evolution is not about 'indoctrination', it's about science teachers teaching science. Schools should teach well supported, evidence-based facts, which is what evolution is.

Yes, all theories. Scientific "law" should be taught as law. Scientific "theory" should be taught as theory.

We do agree on one aspect, though.

"the universe and our world was created by an intelligent design, but over time, that design evolved into what it is today." We can split hairs over micro and macro, but I think we can both agree that our world is not the same as it was at the beginning of time.

[Whitemane]

In science, theories are laws. They are the highest scientific achievement, the integration of observation, testing, and insight to generate an intellectual framework within which predictions can be made and experimental tests constructed.

This is a quite distinct usage from the popular one of a theory being little more than an informed guess. Creationists try to muddy the waters by mixing the two usages together.

[Treeshrew]

As Whitemane points out, the definition of scientific theory is not the same as the colloquial definition of theory as 'guess'. A scientific theory, such as evolution is defined (by Wikipedia in this case) as:

A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment...Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

I feel I have to also mention, Twyrch, that we don't even agree on the one point of agreement you speak of! Sorry! I don't believe in any sort of 'intelligent design'. I think the facts as understood by science do not support that hypothesis, although I admit that we do not yet know everything about how the universe or life began. Still, I know that scientists are working on it and until then I find 'I don't know' far more satisfying than saying it must have been a supernatural designer.

But as long as people's personal opinions about the origin of life don't get muddled up with science and affect the education of impressionable young minds, I'm happy to agree to disagree!

[DaRC]

So perhaps evolution should be taught in science lessons and creationist theories taught in religious lessons.

Of course the Norse is correct that in the beginning there was just ice and fire with a big gap on the middle. Then they met (the big bang) and that formed Audumbla the primeval cow, aka the Milky Way & thus the galaxy or early stars. Audumbla licked the Rime, primeval frost as in space it's very cold, creating our solar system, in the creation story called Buri or Ymir the first giant. From him came the other giants and the gods - the sun, moon and planets as well as the realms currently unknown to us. Buri/Ymir dies and his body forms our solar system's present cosmos. It all evolves from there under the influence of Growth (Woden/Odin/Othinn) Order (Hana/Hoenir/Vili) and Decay (Lodhur/Loki/Ve) or god for short.

[Treeshrew]

So perhaps evolution should be taught in science lessons and creationist theories taught in religious lessons.

That I would be very happy to see, DaRC. I think that RE lessons should contain lots of comparative religion studies and discussions of mythology, theology and beliefs, so that children are well-informed about many different world religions and can decide for themselves (as well as being able to understand where people of other beliefs are coming from). Science lessons, on the other hand, should teach science. That way nobody treads on anyone's beliefs, and beliefs don't get confused with facts.

I do enjoy the different creation stories of various cultures and religions, they are a lot of fun around a campfire!

[Whitemane]

In the post-Sputnik era the US produced a series of excellent high school science textbooks (science teaching was undefunded and ignored then too) in response to the surprise. The Biological Studies Core Curriculum text had an entertaining introductory chapter on creation myths and models of the Universe. I thought it was a good way to introduce the difference between scientific study and mythology.

It all got lost somewhere.

[Treeshrew]

I did not know that, Whitemane. I can't imagine the US doing that now!

Have you read Richard Dawkins The Magic of Reality? He does a similar thing by opening each chapter with some myths about things like earthquakes, sunrise, creation etc. and then going into the scientific explanation of things. It's a book meant for older children, but I still learned a lot from it!

[Whitemane]

I did not know that, Whitemane. I can't imagine the US doing that now!

Have you read Richard Dawkins The Magic of Reality? He does a similar thing by opening each chapter with some myths about things like earthquakes, sunrise, creation etc. and then going into the scientific explanation of things. It's a book meant for older children, but I still learned a lot from it!

Haven't read that one, it can go on to the end of a very long list...

My father-in-law was a science teacher at the time, and after Sputnik they were throwing money and resources at him. The books, written by professional scientists and educators, really were very good. It was the polarization of the next decade or so that made such a mess of things.

[Gunslinger]

I think the best way to end confusion surrounding Druidry is to properly define it. Many would state that Druidry has no central definition and theyd be right for the most part.
But there is a pretty well established foundation for Druidry.
We know very little of the original Druid's but we do know much of the modern Druid movement. Its actually got quite a history. It very well may be the foundation of most, if not all, modern pagan religions stemming from Europe. When it began, it started as a romanticized view on the ancient Druids and members leaned toward a scientific mindset. The religious form of modern Druidry came later and solidified what could best be the only real definition of Druidry:
"Veneration of our ancestors, and respect for nature."
From there many Druids branch off to form their own views. Just as many Druid organizations have existed since its revival, there is no official Way of the Druid beyond its usual base view Ive put above.

How you view god, the gods, and evolution are entirely up to you.

[Treeshrew]

How you view god, the gods, and evolution are entirely up to you.

Apart from the fact that, unlike god or gods, evolution is a well-established scientific fact with mountains of evidence from fossils, DNA, longitudinal studies, comparative morphology and many other fields which all show that evolution is true. Evolution isn't something you choose to believe in or not based on faith, it's something you accept based on evidence. To deny it would be akin to denying gravity (also a 'theory' in the scientific sense).

"Veneration of our ancestors, and respect for nature."

If I may play contrarian here, what do you mean by veneration of our ancestors?

[treegod]

How you view god, the gods, and evolution are entirely up to you.

Evolution isn't something you choose to believe in or not based on faith, it's something you accept based on evidence.

In the realm of science, you're right, in theory. That would, of course, be the reasonable thing.

Evidence concerning the psychology of humans and our subjective perception of things is varied: we can be rational and treat evidence in a rational way, but many humans think things and do things that fly in the face of evidence, no matter how obvious. Also not all of us are trained in the objective interpretation of scientific evidence, so we have to make do with belief and a basic way of understanding things. Personally I am more convinced by science's vision of evolution than other alternatives, realising that my understanding is imperfect and subject to updating, even replacing if something "better" comes along (the latter I honestly doubt, since evolution is well established and has a lot going for it).

Evolution says that our ancestors were animals, and that we retain a lot of animal instinct within us. Which also means that we retain a lot of irrational quirks that can influence our beliefs and understanding of things. Which explains all the "weirdos" that don't believe in evolution.

[Gunslinger]

Apart from the fact that, unlike god or gods, evolution is a well-established scientific fact with mountains of evidence from fossils, DNA, longitudinal studies, comparative morphology and many other fields which all show that evolution is true. Evolution isn't something you choose to believe in or not based on faith, it's something you accept based on evidence. To deny it would be akin to denying gravity (also a 'theory' in the scientific sense).

And yet it is still up to them rather to accept evolution or to deny it. You cant force people to believe in anything, nor should the theory stand in the way of them and Druidry. It is a question in its self.

If I may play contrarian here, what do you mean by veneration of our ancestors?

Respect toward our ancestors is a stable factor of the modern Druid.

[Fox]

Evolution is the defining paradigm of modern biological sciences, much as Aristotelian science was the defining paradigm of his age, and thus through Copernican, Newtonian, and quantum physics which have superseded each other as defining paradigms.

We'll carry on using the theory of evolution to explain the development of life on earth until something better comes along - and I've got a hunch that intelligent design ain't it.

[Treeshrew]

And yet it is still up to them rather to accept evolution or to deny it. You cant force people to believe in anything, nor should the theory stand in the way of them and Druidry. It is a question in its self.

True, but it is a question with a right and wrong answer. I wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to believe anything, but I would say, as would practically every practicing biologist, that people who don't belive in evolution are, as a matter of fact, wrong. Like people who believe in a flat earth. They are free to have their beliefs, but they are wrong. If the search for truth means anything to one's spiritual path, then scientific truth should be part of that search.

Respect toward our ancestors is a stable factor of the modern Druid.

I'm still not sure what this means. Does this include immediate ancestors who we may have had abusive relationships with? Does this include Christian ancestors who may have wanted to execute us for practicing pagan ways? In my opinion (and I'm speaking only for me, not for Druidry), respect has to be earned.

[Treeshrew]

We'll carry on using the theory of evolution to explain the development of life on earth until something better comes along - and I've got a hunch that intelligent design ain't it.

If science were ever to disprove evolution, I would stop believing in it. So far, the evidence only keeps piling up in its favour, and no other 'theory' has even come close to its explanatory power. 'Intelligent Design' does not explain anything. Maybe one day it might, but I doubt it!

[DJ Droood]

If science were ever to disprove evolution, I would stop believing in it. So far, the evidence only keeps piling up in its favour, and no other 'theory' has even come close to its explanatory power. 'Intelligent Design' does not explain anything. Maybe one day it might, but I doubt it!

Maybe if they promoted the sciences in communities and schools with a strong religious traditon, it would equip the children to grow up to be religious scientists and go out and find the proof they need to win over the skeptics. I wonder why they don't do that?

[treegod]

I think the basic ideas of evolution are right. Perhaps a few details are wrong, and the theory of evolution continues being tweaked, but overall it's got a lot going for it presently. A lot more than intelligent design.