You have actually proposed a good topic.
I have been in many discussions in the realm of evolution. In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.
I posted some definitions to you in another thread. I'll repeat a couple of them here:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
These definitions will show you the role of "truth" in science -- i.e., none. Science does not claim to have "truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH," or anything of that nature. That is left for religions to claim. Although the term "truth" is often used for scientific evidence and findings by the layperson, it is not technically correct.
Since there is no truth to be found inside of science does alot of circumstancial evidence make truth?
No, of course not! What that "circumstantial evidence" does do is let scientists formulate and test hypotheses. Those hypotheses which withstand the tests can be advanced to theories (see the definitions above). Theories are the current best explanations for a particular set of facts. Theories are more "true" than hypotheses, guesses, conjectures, and the like, but as the definition above notes, scientists are not likely to be claiming any ultimate truths.
I personally do not think it does. But many I'm sure feel that all the evidence compels one to determine that it should be considered as truth.
And you would be wrong, as you have not yet learned how these terms are used in science.
I have no doubt that the scientific community is very skilled at thier craft and expertise.
Finally, you are correct in something!
Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age?
I have some expertise in radiocarbon dating. I have been studying that field for over 30 years. And there are a lot of ways in which we can have some confidence in radiocarbon dates. The main way of testing this dating method is by dating materials that occur in annular layers--tree rings, corals, glacial varves, etc. There are quite a few things that occur in annular fashion. Those items are deposited year after year, and by counting back the individual layers or rings we can come up with items which are known to be of a particular age. Those can then be radiocarbon dated, and a calibration curve can be constructed which corrects the radiocarbon method for atmospheric variation. Also, certain events such as volcanoes create short-term changes in climate. By correlating those changes with known volcanic eruptions through history we can get another check on the accuracy of the radiocarbon method. Finally, we can date items of a known age, from marine shells collected at known dates to Egyptian artifacts and grave goods from dated contexts. All of these allow us to check the accuracy of the radiocarbon method, and to correct for particular forms of variation. And the method is quite accurate!
Other methods of radio-dating use similar methods, but they are outside of my expertise.
Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth?
We are seeking explanations, not some "truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH." We leave that to others. (There are a LOT of those proclaiming to have the truth.)
Or do they have previous beliefs in something and fit facts and adjust theory.
Scientists who fudge data do not last long--that is the exact opposite of what we do. We adjust (or discard) theories based on facts. If a theory can accommodate new facts, they are incorporated. When a theory can't accommodate new facts, it must be discarded or seriously modified.
Really, what is the use of a theory that does not accurately explain the facts it is supposed to explain? It is useless to us!
This is alot like white lying. I agree that theories should be improved and evidnece collected. But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it.
The comprehension of the common man is not a requirement of science, nor is their approval or disapproval of any importance. Theories are based on evidence and the testing of both the theory and that evidence.
A real good theory I propose is the origin of life is so easy to understand that a common man unknowable of science can achieve it. People are smart and chose to ignore that ability.
Then, present your theory (actually an hypothesis) of the origin of life! But remember to bring evidence and to expect your hypothesis to be critically examined in light of your evidence and extant evidence. That's the way things are done in science. (And note, that this is not a part of the theory of evolution.)
The real problem with all of evolution is not that evolution claims us as evolved from a previous species. Or that it doesnt not supply God with direct creation ability. But it out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned. If a palentologist, scientist, or evolutionist does not say up front that thier dating charts are in fact predicted at best from modern day samples, thier ability to observe age, and thier estimates of ages by the knowledge they have to work with is not truthful.
Forget truth! We are after scientific accuracy. Maybe you can find ""truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH" etc. in the 40,000 extant world religions, denominations, sects, and other subdivisions, but without some empirical evidence to differentiate between these religions etc. you'll never come up with anything that has any empirical support.
So the main question is for anyone and anybody.
Is learning the truth of origin more important?
Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?
Again you are mixing several things together. Learning and predicting by the evidence collected is what is important to science. That's what science does!
Religions, on the other hand, do the opposite. They rely on belief, scripture, dogma, revelations and other non-empirical "evidence." When members of a group differ in their interpretations of that "evidence" they generally split, creating two or more denominations or sects. There is no empirical evidence that will differentiate between the interpretations! Exactly the opposite of science.
Edited by Coyote, : Grammar
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
