Multiple choice

The following question appeared on an online quiz for students of a human biology unit (namely ANHB1101) at the University of Western Australia:

Which statement is incorrect?
1. The development of tolerance to lactose is an example of organic evolution in some human populations
2. Belief in God is consistent with evolutionary theory
3. If the theory of evolution is correct, then we would expect to observe vestigial organs in many species
4. Evolution is always too slow to be seen within a human’s lifetime
5. Charles Darwin’s evidence for evolution by natural selection included the fossil record

Well I’ll be damned. If the question were “which statements are incorrect?”, I’d have no hesitation in selecting 2 and 4, but having to choose one or the other poses quite a dilemma.

Apparently not for the ANHB department, which declared that the statement “Belief in God is consistent with evolutionary theory” is “true” and then stated that “many individuals concerning themselves with evolution (e.g. Charles Darwin) were very religious”.

Let’s ignore for a moment the comment on Darwin’s religious identity, and quickly query the relevance of this explanation to the statement. Even if Darwin were religious, would that suggest that belief in God is consistent with evolutionary theory? No. It would merely suggest that belief in God is not necessarily inconsistent with evolutionary theory, and there is a very crucial difference between these two statements.

Now to address the comment that Charles Darwin was “very religious”. This statement is deceptive at best, and outright wrong at worst. Darwin was, at one point in his life, religious – this is true. However Darwin was, by the end of his life, no more of a believer than I am!

To quote directly from Charles Darwin’s posthumously published autobiography:

“Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine.

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.” – Charles Darwin

Another student who came across this question posted their confusion on the discussion forum for the ANHB1101 unit. The original post and responses follow.

Please note that formatting has been altered and names removed.

OP:
Why in the Itiot quiz on evolution was the statement "Belief in God is consistent with evolutionary theory" considered a true statement?
I know it was brought up in the lectures that many people can consider religion and evolution very different things, and keep those parts of their lives separate, however, depending on your belief, that may not be the case.
I personally do not have any belief in God, and I do not feel offended, but I do think that this question is too open to debate to be tested in any form.

R1:
i beleive you raise a good point.
but think of it like this.
we have learnt that nothing in science is right or wrong, it is either falsified or not. till then EVERYTHING is a theory.

God/religion is a theory.
Evolution/Darwin is a theory.

Neither has been falsified in any sense, thus they are both consistent with eachother. whether we descended from a single celled organism, or God created us from that single celled organism, and made a human divine being, we do not know.
but both THEORIES cannot be falsified, thus both are diffrerent ways of explaining an evoltuion, they must be consisten with eachother.

Im Catholic, and i belive in God. But I am not ignorant to the fact that we have evolved from something, as Darwin has taught us.

Hope you dont think im arguing, but im just trying to portray a point of view from a catholic/god believer

OP:
You yourself are Catholic. Other Christians (or other religions in general) might argue that a belief in God is inconsistent with Darwin’s theory of evolution because they take the Old Testament and other religious texts literally.

My point really is that I don’t think it’s valid to mix religion and science and then treat the result as factual. Saying that a belief in evolution is not inconsistent with a belief in God would have to qualified, for instance, by referring to specific religion.

Therefore, because of the potential for debate regarding the validity of this answer I do not believe that it should be included as a true/false answer in this quiz.

R1:
First of all. As part of religion, we all have the same God. So none would have to refer to a specific religion in this case, thus a specific religion would be innapropriate and could be deemed offensive if one was individually selected.

one again, they are both theories, thus the point is they are consistent based on the evolution/creation of man.
none is either right or wrong, they are both theories of human where abouts so you cant say they are inconsistent.

i think your diving into the matter into too much detail.

i beleive science and religion have every right to be mixed. yeah blah blah science is what has made the earth today, but what made that science. thats what scientist cant prove, thus they cant falsify the fact of religion and or god and or a higher power.
i beleive this point was brought up in one of the first lectures.

once again not trying to create an argument. merely another side to the story.

also word of advice dont say "because they take the Old testament and other religious texts literally"
it sounds condescending, and some may got offended, as your almost saying they’re wrong and you are right.
every religion has a doctrine which they follow, there is no need to mock it. its their beleif, just as it is your belief to no beleive in god

thanks

OP:
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to sound condescending, my point is that a lot of religious texts will say something very different to Darwin’s theory of evolution. The reason I include this is because there are religions that take writings such as the old testament literally, such as Evangelical Christians. So I’m not trying to be condescending, just make the point that some people will severely disagree.

I’m not trying to say that either is right or wrong, only that what we are being taught is based on Darwin’s theory, not religious theory. If this was a theology class, I might feel the need to bring up the point in the exact same manner. I simply do not agree that that answer should be considered fact when it is so debatable. I’m not saying anything about right or wrong.

R1:
i agree with you mostly, i just beleive you cant rule out the fact and theory of religion.

your point is very correct, but remember a religious person like myself would contest if the question were marked false.

so in a sense, im now agreeing with you that the question itself would cause so much debate.
but i believe in a scientists point of view me must respect the method of theories and falsifiability, thus we cannot not rule out the theory of any religion, and therefore must pose this question to newly developed scientists so they are aware of the different branches of understanding evolution.

ignoring it now, could cause much more debate in later life as a professional scientist.

so i believe that you could agree in me saying, that this question is being posted so that we dont see science as a way of disproving the bible, or any religion in a sense?
and is rectifying that it is a theory just like dawrins theory, and neither have been falsified?

OP:
That’s exactly what I’m saying. It wasn’t a valid question to put in in the first place, and it should not be put in as a part of this course. Sorry, I was saying "answer" because it was one of the available andwers for a ‘which of these is correct’ question. It was probably confusing.

Because we can falsify neither Darwin’s theory, nor religious theory, the course should remain consistent only with the theory it is trying to teach. Religious theory should not be involved, because it is not a major part of this course, though Darwin’s theory should be generally accepted as not trying disproved by it. We are learning the "best" theory of evolution based on ideas and the hypothetical-deductive process. Religion is far too complex the be determined in the same manner, or to be discussed in this class.

Thanks for your input so that I was able to make my point more clear. I’m glad we can agree on the matter at hand.

Myself:
I’m presently sitting in the Math & Physical Sciences Library and in a bit of a rush so I’ll keep this pretty brief. This is a response to the comment that creation and evolution are “both theories”.

First of all, Darwinian evolution is completely and utterly incompatible with concepts such as intelligent design or young earth creationism. The mechanism for Darwinian evolution is natural selection, it is entirely non-directional and there is no room for any divine purpose or intervention.

The existence of a deity is not falsifiable, this is very true, nor is the existence of Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The reality that an idea is not falsifiable does not suggest at all that it is not false. What are falsifiable are ideas such as ID or YEC, and these have indisputably been falsified. To suggest that they are scientific theories, let alone valid scientific theories, is exceptionally ignorant.

Young Earth Creationism comes from a literal interpretation of Genesis (see genealogies of Genesis) and supposes that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. This is falsifiable, this has been falsified. Groups such as the RCC have only come to terms with this in the past few decades because they profit from ignorance – the more that is explained through natural processes, the less gaps there are for their god to fill in. Another example of this is just how long it took the RCC to officially accept the core ideas which arose from the Copernican revolution.

You might take it on faith in spite of the weight of evidence against such ideas, and I might be considered intolerant for questioning your faith, but that does not make you any less wrong.

R2:
[Sum of my lonngg response is: Darwinian Evolution & some beliefs of God (like mine) give rooms for each other to a certain degree]

Although I hold a certain personal belief, my responses are logical, I believe. Otherwise, correct me.
(I’ll put my responses in brackets)

Darwinian Evolution:
- Natural Selection (cannot be falsified due to all the evidence eg. different breeds of dogs)
- non-directional (that may be true ONLY IF the existence of a higher Designer or Creator is falsified… but that is impossible. Now, falsifying the Invisible Pink Unicorn is also impossible. People’s belief may depend on testimonies, personal experiences and other evidence. IF the concepts of the Invisible Pink Unicorn has existed for thousands of years and millions of people from different social, knowledge, age, time, place, etc. have claimed to have a personal encounter with it then… shouldn’t we think twice before mocking its believers?)
- All organisms arose from an ancestor organism (It was mentioned in the Q&A forum that we wouldn’t know if ‘life’ has arisen more than once)
- etc… all da stuff we learned

Intelligent design & Creationism:
- Higher Designer/Creator (It does not completely and utterly reject Evolution &or Natural Selection. IF there is a Designer/Creator that is above the Nature, THEN Natural Selection is not non-directional.)
- Human is ‘special’, not evolved from monkeys, fish, etc. (If some ‘random’ particles collided to form the Darwinian Evolution’s Life Ancestor once, why can’t other ‘random’ particles collide to form Human too? Maybe some groups formed Fish, Plants, Animals, etc, too? The Kingdoms & Species are just TOO complex? It wouldn’t be, IF Intelligent Design were true. And aren’t the Universe just as complex, esp when you study Chemistry to see those huge/complicated molecules?)
- etc… all da stuff we did not learn

Just to correct some stuff: According to the Bible, HUMAN SPECIES has existed for less than 10 thousand years, not the formation of Earth & Life Forms. The Bible’s story of Creation says that it happened in 7 "days". I can’t define "days" that was meant then but can the ‘literal 7 days’ be falsified? MAYBE, something (even scientific things within the physical laws) happened to speed up the process(es) of ‘Evolution’ &or ‘the Rise of Life’?? …or MAYBE it meant 7 thousand/million/billion years, and that may seem more ‘reasonable’ for those ‘random’ stuff to happen?

—–ex. of how the Bible is consistent with Science—–
Do ur own research if u want to see if the earliest Scriptures are found before or after scientists have figure out these things:

Genesis 1:6-8
*’Sky’ …or clouds really, are made of water!

Genesis 1:9-10
* The continents we know now were once one!

Genesis 11-26
* vegetation arose before animals, human arose later!

Job 26:7
* the earth is suspended in space!

Isaiah 40:21
*the earth is round!
*the universe is expanding!

Myself:
You seem to misunderstand the definition of ‘falsifiable’. One definition of falsifiable is “capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation” [