Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

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.

quote:

---

I've been fiddling with this idea obliquely, and I was wondering if it might be a good topic.
I myself accept evolution "on authority," but can't quite figure out a rationale for this acceptance. It's no good to say, "Well, it's obvious that you are convinced by all the evidence": the evidence itself is being accepted by me on authority.

​

Definitions:

​

"to accept on authority"--to believe a proposition because you trust those who give you the information, even though you have no direct access to the evidence.

​

"no way to access the evidence"--
This doesn't mean it's not physically possible to access it, but that it is impractical.
To read a book is not to access the information directly. It's still secondhand knowledge which we accept on the authority of the author.

​

Possible contention: Often these specialists we trust (medical doctors,etc.) turn out to be wrong. Some of them, in fact, are crooks. Why shouldn't we be as wary of scientists who study evolution as we are of automotive mechanics? Both are mere "specialists."

​

In fact [a creationist might argue] most of these scientists are liberal agnostics or atheists who might very well have, consciously or unconsciously, an anti-religious agenda. An insidious bias as a result might infiltrate all their work. If you took a poll of the percentage of "liberals" among university professors, the number would approach 90% [I made the number up, but my personal experience tells me this might be accurate].

​

Why should we trust such people?

---

I think that there is a significant acceptance of EVOLUTION "on authority." My grandfather was my mother's "authority" and she accepted his teaching and the general discusssion of nature vs nuture & went up the street to the Methodoist Church becoming a Presvyterian who asserted to her son going off to Cornell that one day he would see that it was possible to believe in Evolution and God at the same time. I accepted that that was her view (thus gained I assert by "faith" or acceptance of authority) but with dealing with biologists and reality at Cornell I found that this dissection of creation science which shows that progressive creationism is YEC distinct explains my mother's false position and possibly "wrong" acceptance of authority. And to show that I did not suscumbe to the same culture I must note that i THINK Gould has mis historcized post-synthesis developments (no matter what biology US has Had over USSR (with doing morgenmendel genetics etc)by USING "hardening" of adaptationisms BECAUSE while not accepting my grandfather's field as my mother did, I do by activly engaging the material itself (difference of birds and herps etc etc(the miami dolphins are not "fish" etc) and I had indeed found that it was out of adapting himself to the death of his spouce in child birth and finding that his parental situation was not dealing with the life in this greif (his parents were 7th day adventists) as he felt, Willard Stanely accepted evolution but was not of the ilk that ostracsized those who do believe. He got his "authority" from Zeleny who also taught Wright and it is possible for me to trace what I write here at EvC about the non-linear and non-equilibrium inhibition against the equilibrium approach of Georgi G. to FAILURE "to have faith" in THESE authorities of my past so I was able to compare my reaction to the carrer decision of my physicist brothers in the claim of CHOICE of creation or science of nonUnited States' citizens, sometimes and somewhat, in the failure acceptable"" philosophy of biology of the present.Feel free to ask again. Yes, I have avoided learning a second language but without any higher degree it is not really to blamed on me socially. Of course if you knew me personally you could.

Yes, I also think the error affected effect extended back farther than the "wild'ness of my parents' music and generation.

well, I would have said he was "wrong", at least as it leads to acceptance of authority only. Take the intro course on BIology by Campbell, it opens with a discussion of emergence not transitionals as fact. This is a tragedy for the new student so let me go back to an earlier time. Darwin thought that transitionals would approve his view of modified DESCENT and let me take this as if true, as bird/reptile fossil with feathers as not a fraud etc etc. What seems to support the sense of the authority whether in the philosophy of biology of organcism or the "fact" of evolution, I dont understand how the existence of any one or a number of transitionals leads the popular mind to think that the rates of change are thereby validated!What i dont get is how from a the approval of SOME fossil as accepted by professional evolutionists the people think this gave liscene to think that the forms are malleable to any arbitrary extent but Darwin knew this was a matter of systmatics and why he studied Baranacles. Some how it is wrong to understand change willy nilly on the existence of a fossil or so but common mind can not find mental space generally to seperate change from any change and simply assert evolution as a particular change that I can not find to exist.