Re: paleonet Moral Values Doesn't Necessarily MeanAnti-Evolution

["bivalve" <bivalve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>having GWB as a president seems to be a very bad choice. He is also the guy who says that the research that supports concerns about global warming is junk science, so what would you expect?<

Despite the vote-garnering religious rhetoric, this seems to be a much bigger driving factor in what conservative politics actually becomes law.  When immediate business interests are more important than sustainability over the next decade, the long-term perspective afforded by paleontology does not get much attention.  

>Is there something the palaeo community in the USA could do next time, to at least change  the opinion of that 3% that made the difference, so >  that there would be a government that actually supports (good) palaeontological science in an evolutionary framework?<

I think it's critical to emphasize that "Moral Values Doesn't Necessarily Mean Anti-Evolution".  Obviously, antievolutionism does not win adherents based on its scientific merit.  It is perceived as having religious and/or moral merit.  This perception is false.  Most religious perspectives that tend to be sympathetic to antievolutionary claims also profess laws along the general theme of "Thou shalt not lie."  Thus, antievolutionism is not the bastion of moral values that it claims to be (not to mention the frequent arrogance and combativeness).  However, at least since Huxley there has been the tendency to associate evolution with rejection of certain traditional moral values.  Evolution is a biological process and tells us nothing about moral right and wrong, yet even some standard biology textbooks claim otherwise, mixing philosophical claims with their presentation of evolution and thereby supporting the antievolutionist lie that evolution necessarily entails a rejection of
traditional religious views.  In fact, the modern antievolutionist movement has only in the past few decades emerged from the fringes to take over a large following, and it is incompatible with traditional Christianity in its emphasis on bogus science to the neglect of Christ.  

The irrelevance of evolution to morality may be readily seen by thinking of another law of science, such as gravity.  No one rejects it, even though it is not mentioned in any religious text that I know of; conversely, no one tries to claim that the law of gravity means that it is morally OK to drop heavy rocks on people.  Yet antievolutionists go to great lengths to imply that God is either too weak or too stupid to be able to use evolution in His creative activity, while many people try to use evolution as a justification for their behavior.  Evolutionary analysis will tell whether the behavior is likely to promote reproductive success, and whether there are plausible inherited reasons for the behavior, but it cannot tell whether the behavior is moral, immoral, or neither.

For example, although my evolutionary success has just dramatically increased from 0 to 1 offspring, I don't particularly feel as though this has made me more of a success (maybe due to my lack of sleep).  Nothing wrong with the baby, but evolutionary success doesn't seem nearly as important as many other things.

A couple years ago, a rap song was being touted by antievolutionists as proof of the evil influence of evolution.  It claimed that "you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel."  In fact, of the claims here, evolution only tells that we are mammals and that some reproductive techniques that might be observed on the Discovery Channel are totally unfeasible due to physical and genetic constraints that reflect our evolutionary heritage (fragmentation, simultaneous hermaphrodism, budding, pollination...).  However, those conclusions may be reached independently of evolutionary considerations.  "Ain't nothing but mammals" is an assertion of philosophical naturalism, i.e. the belief that the physical is all that exists.  This is independent of evolution; the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes reached the same conclusion in its consideration of philosophical naturalism.  The suggestion of emulating the Discovery Channel in fact reflects
ignorance of the evolutionary field of comparative reproductive biology; even options that are physically feasible are unlikely to be appealing in detail (suppose tonight's special is on black widow spiders).  Similar problems plague other claims to base morals on evolution.  

If we can be more vigilant to emphasize that evolution is science, it may help combat pseudoscience.  For example, many antievolutionists would love to misrepresent some of the recent subject lines on Paleonet as proof that evolution implies bad morals.  Of course, what was meant is that political claims to promote moral values may actually be cover for efforts to attack evolution.  If we clearly distinguish between our philosophical/religious/political views and our science, it will help show up antievolutionism as bad religion and bad science.  

    Dr. David Campbell 
    Old Seashells 
    University of Alabama 
    Biodiversity & Systematics 
    Dept. Biological Sciences 
    Box 870345 
    Tuscaloosa, AL  35487-0345 USA
    bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa