This is the text of John Perkins' opening speech of the debate, held at Scotch Oakburn College, Launceston, on 29 September 2006. The debate was between the Atheist Foundation of Australia, and the combined Baptists of Launceston, on the above topic.
Evolution is a fact. It is as true as any proposition in science. Scientific knowledge has proceeded to the point where all doubt about the process of evolution, as a description of how life on earth came about, has been dispelled. As a description of a process, evolution is indeed reliable.
Unwillingness to accept the fact of evolution as a reliable general description of a natural process, is not so much a question of evolutionary science, but one of psychology. Unwillingness to accept evolution does not arise from any failing of science, but is a failing to accept the findings of science.
The question for debate and inquiry is therefore not so much whether evolution is reliable, but why some people are unable to accept its reliability. This is a philosophical question, relating to belief versus knowledge, to faith versus reason. But it is also a psychological question. It is a question of how the human mind operates in relation to acceptance of reality or indulgence in delusion or deception.
British scientist Richard Dawkins has stated that "anybody who believes the world is only 6,000 years old is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked". This statement has caused some resentment in his opponents, possibly quite understandably, as the descriptions he uses are not really terms of endearment. It is not my intention here to hurl abuse at our opponents. It is my intention to focus on ideas, not persons, to "play the ball and not the man", to use a football analogy. This is not to say that Dawkins’ terms are necessarily inappropriate. However I do suggest that our opponents are misguided, and seriously so.
There are two modes of operation of the human brain. One is on a rational level and one is on an emotional level. Everyone has the capability of both kinds of operation. Many people may have an emotional dislike for what I say here. I want you try to appeal to your rational brains, to appeal to your sense or reason, and not to your faith.
Let me put to you, in a simplified 5 step form, (due to Dawkins) the argument that is usually mounted for creationism or intelligent design.
1. There are two competing theories, A and B.
2. Theory A has countless pieces of evidence supporting it, and nothing has ever been found to contradict it. (John McKay differs, in that he contests this)
3. Theory B has no evidence to support it whatsoever, and in fact is contradicted by known evidence.
4. There exists a phenomenon X, which is currently unexplained.
5. Conclusion: therefore Theory B is true. !!!
It should be clear that the conclusion here does not follow from the premises. Not only are these arguments based on a simple logical error. They are also strategically bad for creationists because they amount to what is known as the "god of the gaps". In the past, it was thought that thunder was caused by gods. But science has a habit of filling the gaps. The problem is, that if there are no more gaps, there is no more room for any gods.
I put it to you that in the 21st century, there are no more gaps. Supernatural explanations are no longer required. There are no phenomena for which a natural scientific explanation is now not known or not conceivable. This is the real issue behind this debate. Of course not all believers think this way, but many of those that need a god, need evolution to not be true, to vindicate their belief in their god.
For those among, us who for reasons of upbringing or habit have an emotional need or dependence on the concept of a supernatural father figure, a god, this fact may be emotionally distressing. For those in this situation I can reassure them that there is no need for such feelings of fear, guilt or resentment, and that it is indeed possible to lead a fulfilled and moral life, without the need for supernatural belief.
I return to the question of why people reject evolution, despite the evidence, and what leads John McKay to seek to find, or manufacture, contrary evidence. I quote the famous economist John Maynard Keynes, who said: "When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir? "
Psychological studies show that paradoxically, when new information is presented to people, challenging their beliefs, typically, at least initially, they do not change their beliefs. Instead of being rational, people behave emotionally, especially when their beliefs are deeply and emotionally held. This is a phenomenon known in psychology as the observed reaction to "cognitive dissonance", or metal discomfort. When beliefs are challenged by new facts, people often seek to remove the mental discomfort this causes, not by modifying beliefs but by trying harder to believe. They summon more faith. One could almost say that all religion depends upon this phenomenon.
I contend that this is a phenomenon that may now be operating in many people’s minds as a result of this debate. This is why I appeal to the rational side of the brain in contrast to the emotional side. We can all react rationally when necessary, no matter how strong a believer we may be. For example, we may pray to our god that our car not break down. However if it does break down, we will not pray to our god to fix it. Reason prevails when necessity dictates.
Many of the reasons for rejecting evolution come from misunderstandings or misrepresentations. However, if we simply understand the mechanism, then all life can be explained. You do not need to be a motor mechanic to understand the principle of how the internal combustion engine works. Likewise with evolution. The principle is this. Any characteristic that assists survival will be more likely passed to the next generation. That’s it. Starting with a self replicating molecule, and allowing 4 billion years, all life is thus explained.
Part of the problem in understanding this concept is the difficulty in grasping the enormity of the concept of 4 billion years. Let me put it this way. If the Bible is 2000 years old, that seems old, in human terms. But the earth is 2 million times older than the Bible. It is 2 million times two thousand years old. That is 4 billion years. And that universe is four times older than that. The atoms of which we are composed were forged in the nuclear furnace of a star that exploded maybe 10 billion years ago. Now that is a true wonder of creation!
Speaking of stars, there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on every beach on the earth. As ABC science reporter Robin Williams puts it, if the universe was created for us, then why are there so many stars? A rather inexplicable degree of redundancy, it would seem. The universe was not created for us. The universe came into existence through the forces of quantum cosmology that are inconsistent with theism. Life is possible, as we know, since we currently are experiencing it. It is indeed remarkable. But it is entirely explicable, naturally.
Many of the arguments against evolution misrepresent the process, as if it can occur within a generation, or within an individual, or that it is a process that is entirely random. Consider the following illustration of the process of evolution, proposed by G.G. Simpson. Suppose we have all 26 letters of the alphabet in a hat. We draw out three at a time. If they are not the letters C, A, T, we put them back. Statistically it would take about 32,000 tries before we get the three letters, C, A, T. Now suppose that if when we get one of the letters, we keep it, and just put the others back. By this method it will take only about 75 tries to get the three letters C A and T. What this shows is how random selection, combined with a method by which successful genes are retained, produces results that would otherwise be impossible.
Evolution is a method that has produced life forms that are uniquely suited to their environment, not once, but repeatedly, throughout geological time. In the depths of the ocean there are volcanic vents that provide a constant source of heat energy. Life forms have evolved, quiet independently, around these vents that are quite unlike anything else on planet earth. Is evolution reliable? We know that it is.
The question that remains to be answered perhaps, is what is the motivation of the evolution deniers? The best explanation is that they are misguided or uninformed. For those that seek to make a profession out of evolution denial, however, some harsher judgement, as Dawkins has suggested, may be justified.
While much in science is not completely certain, what can be said about the scientific method is that it is the best method we have of establishing the truth. It is a method that is honest. The method of science was first described by Francis Bacon. In 1603 he wrote of the need to seek "the Truth", by studying similarities and "subtler differences", using "patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to reconsider", without preference for old or new, but with a "hatred of every kind of imposture".
This is a method that has served humanity well, producing immense benefits in terms of technology and medicine. By contrast, as Mark Twain put it, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so". Al Gore quotes Mark Twain in his film "an Inconvenient Truth", to the effect that the biggest problems are caused not by what we don't know, but by what we do know, but refuse to believe.
Never before in history has it been as necessary and as urgent as it is today, that we summon all our rational faculties to deal with the problems that are now confronting humanity. Science is reliable. We better believe it.