Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

Excellent topic, Robin. This is true. Scientists can be wrong in two ways: they can either be, as you say, crooks - or, to put it more appropriately, frauds; or they can be honest, but still wrong.Frauds will be found out eventually. And honest scientists who are nevertheless wrong, will also be corrected by their peers sooner or later. The scientific method ensures this.What's more, by being wrong, these honest scientists have done us a favour: they have shown us what is not the truth about something, and they have thus helped us along on the way of progress.Something else to consider in this matter is that scientists are also often right. And even though we lay people cannot always examine their evidence ourselves, what we can do is witness that the results the scientists produce actually work. We can use inventions that are based on their theories. For example, we can use antibiotics to treat bacterial infections. (And in doing so, we can even witness evolution at work when we discover that over time the antibiotics don't kill bacteria anymore, because the bacteria has evolved and become resistent.)

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I find it very peculiar that you accept so off-handedly that static on your TV is evidence for the Big Bang. There could be dozens of other explanations, yet here is Mike, who sees snow on his TV screen and pronounces without further thought: "Yup, Big Bang allright."For most people, the theoretical framework that led scientists to posit the idea of the Big Bang is much harder to understand than the basic tenets of the theory of evolution, which are 'imperfect replication' and 'selective pressure', ideas that can be readily understood by the layperson.What's more, the evidence for evolution is much more visible and accessible to the public than the evidence for the Big Bang. You can literally see imperfect replication happening in nature. And you can logically conclude that the environmental circumstances must exert selective pressure on different individuals of the same sort.The only thing you cannot directly witness is the long-term continuing repetition of imperfect replication under selective pressure. That's where fossils come in handy: they are evidence that this continuing repetition has taken place. Looking at the fossils, it doesn't take 'Columbo brilliance' to figure out what happened.What you ask for, Mike, is an experiment you can do at home that produces new species. Well, that's easy: just breed horses for a couple of millions of years. I'm sure you'll end up with some very different horselike creatures that can't interbreed. If you continue the experiment even longer, you might end up with something distinctly non-horselike.You don't get to live millions of years? That's too bad, Mike, but that's your problem, not evolution's. You have to accept that some processes in nature take a little bit more time than your short lifespan. Like the universe cooling down sufficiently to produce the 3K background radiation you see on your TV as static.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Mike the Wiz seems to accept the Big Bang...

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

That's what I meant, yes. It proves that imperfect replication happens all the time, obviously. For the rest I refer you to Ned. He explained it very succinctly and with a surprising twist:

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

If by "all" you mean "all of humanity", then I think there is no scientific claim that we "all" accept without question.But with a slightly looser demarcation of 'all', I think the atomic theory would be a candidate. Nobody has ever seen an actual atomic particle, yet we all (!) have this mental picture of them as being tiny little balls, bouncing all over the place. The real atomic theory is a little more complicated than that, but for some explanations the ball model is quite sufficient.Or how about the claim that the earth revolves around the sun? Nobody has ever actually witnessed that, say from a helicopter view above the north pole of the sun. The only reason we accept this claim is because it best explains the apparent movement of the sun through the sky.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Crash, don't you recognize a mild-hearted teasing quip when you see one?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 12-21-2004 03:43 PM