Evolution

I was asked to join a facebook group today.

Now when asked whether I believe in evolution, my first instinctive reaction would be to say "yes".

"Of course", even.

But then I was struck by the insipidness of the question, and the layers and layers of misleading and questionable ethics nestling in it like a worm in the core.

Do I believe in evolution? What sort of question is that? What lies behind the question, and what am I really answering when I say "yes"?

I had a lively, if somewhat wine-induced discussion about this with my friend Frank the other day, but I really do believe we need to seriously and consciously consider terminology before we venture into any kind of quest of bivalent truism.

Evolution is a biological principle, a driving force which powers the ways in which organisms adapt to their environment. That's largely it, and yes, that's my own condensed phrasing of what the term means, which you'll find is not too far off its currently prevailing meaning.
Precisely how evolution works is another question, and the answer to that is "No one really knows". There are various theories concerning the specific workings of evolution (Dawin's is the most popular at the moment) and the fact that the word "theory" is missing from the facebook question is quite significant to me. The fact that we're talking about a theory is important, because it means we're discussing an idea, a model by which we intend to comprehend the facts we observe. A model which, if we're to be good scientists, should never be considered as the Truth, but as "truth until something better is proposed".

Do I believe in evolution?
How can I not? I believe in gravity, and in reproduction, and in photosynthesis. Why? Because these are all processes and forces and mechanisms which are demonstrably real. Their existence can be proven, without having to come up with a readily understandable or plausible explanation as to their precise workings.
I also "believe" in tables and cauliflowers and my Edgar Allan Poe omnibus and the cuteness of snoozing kittens, for the very same reason that they are observably "true". Plato might want to disagree on whether my observation of kittens makes them become part of reality, but I can live with the limits of my sensory experiences, and the questionable neutrality of colours and tastes.
I do not "believe" in Nessie and Bigfoot and flying saucers and the suppremacy of the white master race, because I see little evidence of their existence. I'm not saying neither of them actually exists, but I'm certainly not holding much stock in the idea that they do. Until someone demonstrates their existence, beyond grainy pictures and wacky frothing rants, I'm not decided either way. And again, Plato might have mentioned my blind caveman's belief in fareway places like Tibet, but then Plato was a bit of a prick wasn't he?

I believe the question facebook really wanted to ask (but shouldn't have, imho) is whether I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, as outlined in his seminal discourse On the origin of species. Again, this would have been a rather redundant question, since the book (and the theory outlined within its pages) is demonstrably real. Visit your local librabry, pick up the book and there's the proof that Darwin's theory is very tangible, and very real.
Does my believing in it make it any more real? Does my belief in christianity (because let's face it, this was bound to come into this discourse at some point like we all knew it would) make any more real the fact that there is a religion out there centered around the idea that Christ is/was the son of god, and was crucified for the greater good of mankind? Does my belief in the existence of organically grown cauliflower have any impact on my evening dinner? My personal belief in any of the theories of algebra or physics or economy is irrelevant, because they exist already, regardless of my belief, and regardless of my faith in their degree of Truth. Dito for myth and religion and conjecture and superstition and philosophy and any other sort of idea, defined or undefined, which tries to explain something or other.
Again, the question is irrelevant, because it does not invite discussion on a properly defined level.

The question that's really at hand here is whether or not I believe in the validity of the theory of evolution. Whether I believe it to be true. Applicable. Complete.
That's a question from which can spring forth a discussion, an argument, a defense, a challenge, a discourse, an exchange of ideas from which other theories might be distilled.
A question which clearly outlines its intent: to seek out flaws in an idea, rather to slash blindly at some conceived truth.

The question of whether or not I believe in evolution is essentially a dangerous one. Not only is it incomplete and misleading, it also invites me, baits me, into treating a scientific principle as if it were dogmatic. Belief mortgages logic, and while there's nothing wrong with belief, it must never be mingled with logic. Religion and science operate under a different set of rules, and these two rulesets are at odds with each other.
Discussing belief is an emotional affair, for which the cold logic of scientific parlance is utterly unsuitable.
Likewise, the question of belief should never enter into a scientific debate, because the dogmatics inherent in belief undermine the scientific principle.
You can't "measure faith", and neither can you "believe in a meter". Either can be put to question, within its proper set of rules and boundaries, but treating one as the other is unfair whichever way you look at it.
The danger in the original question is that it inevitably entices one to pick a side: "Defenders of Evolution" vs "Champions against Evolution".
And let us make no bones of this, the Champions Against are the religious, the faithful, all and any who, because of their belief, find fault with Darwin's theory of evolution.
So in essence, the facebook question wants me choose between science and religion, between logic and belief, as if they are mutually exclusive. As if believing Darwin was right implies that I cannot believe homeopathy works. As if believing there may be things out there we cannot possibly understand, implies we should treat everything around us as Divine Mystery. As if, by choosing cauliflower over broccoli, I am making a statement as to the latter's nutritional value.
As if, by answering this one misleading and meaningless question, I subscribe to an intellectual and emotional monochromaticism, forfeiting my rights for ambivalence.

I'll be happy to explore this question further at some later time. Few discussions fascinate me as much as the constant foodfight between creationists and evolutionists, and I haven't even gotten into that. From my experience, the discussion is often muddled from the get-go, because of the way questions are phrased.
Like this one.

For now, suffice to say that I cannot and will not answer the facebook question, because it is vague and contrived, riddled with pitfalls and ambiguity.

Oh and yes I like to ramble and rant. Don't know if you noticed ;)

Hugz to y'all,

Jo (Just)