Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?

quote:

---

In other words, the ones that confirm a finding when it is announced are the ones that specialize in that particular field. Specialists in other fields have to take their words for it.

---

This isn't quite true. As someone who went to graduate school studying physics, did some research in planetary sciences, and did some more graduate study in mathematics, I will say that only the most mediocre of researchers are stuck in their own sub-specialty. The best scientists are well-versed in several different fields, and even the average scientist knows enough about the other fields in his particular discipline that not only can she evaluate the different arguments but can pretty much spot crap when she sees it. In fact, as scraf mentioned about her husband, many researchers will do work in several different fields during their professional career.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that the theory of evolution covers so many disciplines, or rather so many disciplines are required to confirm the theory, that it is very unlikely for any one person or group to be so well versed in all the fields involved to understand completely every new finding and interpretation.

---

I still don't understand why this is a problem.-

quote:

---

And once that happens, a bastardized cross-breed of faith and trust is required to fully acknowledge that the theory is confirmed by genetics, geology, cosmology, etc.

---

That is an interesting opinion, but why do you hold it?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt