Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

This brings us to the consideration that we do rely on others. We aren't organisms that once matured just go off and eat, breed and die. If we did what would we know of creationism, or evolution?I'm thinking of this as world paradigns. The major world religions emerged as paradigns associated with civilizations and these paradigns still seem to dominate as they have for several thousands years. But about 400 years ago a new paradign emerged and has been growing in influence ever since.My point is roughly this: you pay your money and you take your choice. Increasingly we see most people given the choice between medical treatement and just prayer will take medical treatment and often pray for good measure.I'm still fuzzy on bibical inerancy. There does seem to be fraud for money and power connected with the Hovinds, and faith healers, and Pat Robertsons of this world. But mostly I see a strong desire for security in an old established belief order. No one has to believe in evolution.Scientist falsify data, lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery just like every other sort of human being. Science is a cumulative self correcting process. Evolution is certainly tied to our understanding of biology as well as geology. All these things are accepted by at least a provisional faith in authority.One thing I like about science is that if a particular premise is found false, or a theory is disproved that doesn't undermine science at all. That is how it works.At the risk of offending some inerrantist I've heard them state here, I believe Willowtree has said this, if any part of the bible is proved wrong than the whole religion is falsified. I know most Christian's don't believe this. I'm just saying that we believe to the best of our knowledge and if that is proven wrong we do the best we can to correct it. If we die and are sent to Hell because we believed wrong then I guess we learned too late. I myself can't believe that the source of the universe would be as narrow and unjust as the Falwells, Ayatols, etc of sectarian religions paint it. On the other hand if the current ToE is proven wrong in whole or part it's just back to the drawing boards.I guess I'm saying it's the preachers who tell us they have absolute truth and can absolutely be trusted that I catagorically distrust. Scientists like any experts I give provisional trust to. Science I trust as a process that has varying degrees of certainty.lfen

quote:

---

All these things are accepted by at least a provisional faith in authority.

---

Well, in my case it was out of negative peer pressure sibling rivalry AND encouragement in my family THAT WAS NOT AUTHORITY ("spoiling of grandparent") so I dont think even a provisional faith in authority bases "belief" in evolution and what was unique in US was simply that the student needed to "do one's best" and not need to ceceed to the rich kids' funded educationally insitutued pedagogy PRECISELY because evolution is what evolves therefore I think the thread head speaks of students who simply find this (acceptance of taught evolution) than becoming suspcicious to one's friends, family, and teachers simply for doing NOTHING.

Well was that acceptance? Sounds more like dutiful agreement in order to avoid some negative consequence. I don't think that is what the OP meant by accepting.lfen

Yes, and by that logic there is a difference between accepting the word of a single Christian (or Muslim, etc.) over accepting the concensus of the Christian community.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2004 08:59 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2004 09:00 PM

Yes............and no.The big difference is that if you want to verify a scientific conclusion you can do so. Religious beliefs, whether consensus or not, are not subject to that condition.There is simply no way to compare the validity of Science with the opinions of religion.To bring up religion in comparison with evolution is misleading. The two cannot be compared.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, my point was that sheer numbers of believers on one side or the other does not solve the problem . . .the Christians would win that battle.

One thought that I had was the matter of consistency. Why is it that we accept all scientific data without any qualms except data that we think disrupts our religious or moral beliefs? We don't have any problem accepting an explanation of how a microwave oven works (which is pretty mysterious). Why should that be any different from TOE?

Yeah, I wasn't sure. I thought it was possible.

Tell me some more about your past. I'm interested. I think we might have something in common. But you will have to put it in simple language for me (sorry, but I am what I am).

Questral, are not some of the rules you mentioned begging the question? How would a layman know if the evidence was "all the available evidence"? If there is a way to figure such questions out deductively, I would agree. But otherwise . . .

This I have doubts about. I don't think we can repeat the work of scientists.

If it's the work of a legitimate scientist, it can most certainly be repeated.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I meant in a practical sense.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know, but practical or not scientific studies and experiments are always repeatable. This is why peer review is both possible and necessary.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

They are not repeatable by the layman, which this topic is all about.What do I care if someone supposedly "repeated" a study? I have no direct evidence of that.I'm still back to believing on authority or not believing.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------