Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

Right.Do you know what Crashfrog said about me Ifen?

This is what I have to put up with from Crashfrog, after introducing a topic that many others seemed to understand perfectly well: Now what possible reason would he have to say this?I'll tell you later.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-21-2004 07:00 PM

Was there a point to this? You have, after all, accused me of lying about what you've said in a number of other threads. Or did you forget?Don't get all in a huff because I chose to respond in kind. The purpose of this thread is not for you to speculate on my motives, or to complain about how I chose not to accept your mistreatment of me lying down.Get over yourself, and get back on topic.

I agree. Look, I've been trying to figure something out here; maybe you can help. Suppose the following dialogue:Evolutionist: What I don't understand is why the creationist can accept other scientific discoveries on authority but cannot accept evolution.Creationist: Because no one has ever witnessed macro-evolution.What is the evolutionist's reply at this point? I'm trying to think of something else we do not "witness" that is scientifically verifiable. I'm having a little problem because I think some of these ideas, such as the earth rotating around the sun, are deducible mathematically. If it's deducible, then you don't have to "witness" it. But I don't know enough to say.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-22-2004 05:02 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-22-2004 05:03 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-22-2004 05:05 PM

RobinrohanFar be it from me to, in any way, feel the need to defend crashfrog, but you do realize that by saying the following, you are, in a way, defending his positionbecause he said that this is exactly what we do NOT have to do since we accept the methodology of scientific publications. Of course, you argument is that we accept it on authority because we did not do the research ourselves. At what point do you stop the lunacy of that particular argument?
Is it possible that the ToE is wrongsure. But for now, all the evidence for the ToE says otherwise and (this is the important part robinrohan) even though I did not personally participate in the collection of the data that supports the theory, I can (and have) examine the results that are published in scientific journals. I look at the evidence, not the authors. The evidence, robinrohan, the evidence, not the people.
Do you understand what I’m asking? At what point then, by your argument, do you believe anything? Do you only accept things for which you yourself have collected the data? I think Percy, in post 82, said it best when he said we’re not accepting it on authority, we’re simple relying on authority. What other choice do we have?Later,
FliesOnly

I think the confusion here has to do with the difference between the layman, such as myself, and the professional scientist. Most laymen do not read the sort of publications that Crashfrog is talking about, if I gather correctly the sort of publication he's talking about. For one thing, they can't understand them very well, and for another thing they are busy with their own field. What they might read is popular science (such as Asimov's books).That's one point of confusion.The other point of confusion was that I was talking about ALL science, not just a particular field. Do biochemists pore through the "evidence" (actually, it's the written record of the evidence, not the evidence itself) of the work of all other fields, such as medicine, for example? Or do they not tend to be extremely specialized and really concentrate on the work in their own fields, even in the particular little corner of their own fields? If that is the case, then the rest of the scientific enterprise they must accept on authority.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-22-2004 05:26 PM

I don't understand the point of the supposed dialogue.The problem isn't that creationists won't accept evolution on an authoritiative basis; the problem is that they won't accept it on the same evidentiary basis that they accept the other conclusions of science.

OK, Crashfrog, leave out the words "on authority" and go with that.I'm looking for some other scientific fact that would correspond in terms of evidence to evolution. Can you think of anything?

Look, let's think of a farmer out there working his land. He works hard all day and then comes home. Do you expect him to pore through those verified scientific publications that you are talking about? For one thing, he couldn't understand them, and for another thing he's way too tired for that. He accepts or does not accept it on authority.Now do you understand?

Maybe he accepts it on authority. Maybe he accepts it because the voices in his head tell him to.Why on Earth would I give a damn? The theory isn't supported on authority, it's supported on evidence for anyone who cares to look.

Crashfrog, it's not a matter of whether it is supported or not. Accepting something on authority doesn't mean that there's no evidence. It means that the person accepting it does not have access to the evidence.Now as far as you not caring whether this farmer accepts it or not, you might think again. If you got enough of these farmers, you've got yourself a political bloc.

quote:

---

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.

---

True, but you are still not making a direct comparison.Religious belief is not at all the same as critical/scientific analysis.Remember, all scientists grant provisional acceptance to scientisfic theories because evidence and repeated observations have shown the theories to be reliable. That provisional acceptance can be and has been withdrawn in the light of new evidence.Religious believers believe without critical analysis, require no evidence nor repeated observations by disinterested parties, and as such their belief is not subject to revision or rejection no matter what evidence is revealed.They are not comparable.

quote:

---

This morning, after writing this up, I went to work (I teach English at a community college), and I was listening to a conversation between two other teachers. One, an economics teacher, was saying to someone that there really wasn't much proof for evolution; it was mostly speculation, he said. Presumably the economics teacher was reasonably well-educated. You have to have at least a Master's degree to teach there.
Just goes to show how widespread this idea is that there is no real proof for evolution.

---

I wonder if that economics teacher has ever heard of the hugely famous economic Game Theory, and how it directly relates to Evolution?He may know some math but he clearly is ignorant of basic Biology.

quote:

---

Is there some other scientific claim that we all accept without question though no one has ever witnessed it?

---

The existence of Electrons.The Earth has a core of molten iron.The mass of the sun warps the space around it.

robinrohanI assume you have a reasonable level of education.Can you explain what energy is?