Hello FEY! I have been a lurker on these boards for a while now and so you have not had any interaction from me until this point, but I feel that you have raised a couple of pretty good issues. First off, I would like to say welcome to the land of the Old Earth! It really is quite a beautiful thing when you see how well all of the evidence for this fits with the reality of an Old Earth. Now, on to some of the issues that you have raised...
The first issue you mention is that you have not been indoctrinated, but rather came to this conclusion through researching the evidence and making a decision that you would follow this evidence even if the conclusion would assault your original worldview. This is definitely a commendable reaction to evidenced positions and one that I believe many on this board have come to through very much the same process. For myself, I was raised in a Catholic family, but raised to inquire about the nature of the world and how things worked. This slowly paved the way, not for indoctrination, but for wanting to follow the evidence (similar to you) no matter where it took me. For me, this led me to eventually remove the mantle of my religion and trade it in for Atheism. This was an extremely trying moment in my life because it changed a lot of how I looked at the world (at first). If one solid piece of evidence were to be presented for a God or God-like creature tomorrow, I would be first to join you and say that this is definitely a much more possible idea. However, I would still maintain my skeptical nature and look for more evidence to back up the idea. Similar to the idea of an Old Earth, I would like the theory to be backed by a large quantity of data that increases the likelihood of the theory being correct. Therefore, it is slightly disingenuous to claim to have knowledge of how each individual came to their final decisions on each scientific topic. Most people I know who care about science and scientific principles are also generally very skeptical people. It is therefore likely that these people have analyzed evidence because (like the reason they always ask for it on this board) without evidence all that exists is an unsupported assertion. It could definitely be right, but without evidence there is no reason to investigate it any further. So, in this instance where you state that you, unlike everyone else here, are not indoctrinated I think that you have overstepped the bounds on what evidence you can provide for that statement. In fact, through my own experience I can guarantee that I have come to my views simply through the evidence that I have studied.
As per your thoughts on the Theory of Evolution in
Message 38 I feel that you have a point. However, I think that you are missing a portion of it. The part where there seems to be overwhelming agreement in the scientific community is that evolution consists of random mutations and natural selection. Could there be more aspects that affect it that have not been studied enough at this time? Definitely! The theory is still tentative on its final shape, but we have observed the mutations and how natural selection weeds out those that are detrimental to an organism. This is reality, this is observable, and this is a fact that the theory (even if it is a new theory that you end up devising) must explain as well. A great example of a possible future change in the theory is punctuated equilibrium compared with gradualism. Both of these ideas still include the basic fact of evolution that has been observed. Both ideas are aware of the random mutations and natural selection. There is just the difference of the speed at which these mutations happen. Dawkins is a huge proponent of gradualism, but he is not completely closed to the idea of PE, if that is where the evidence takes him. We should not be closed to any evidence, but we should evaluate all evidence from all angles.
My final point has to do with what you refer to as the nature of science. You are definitely correct in that it is scientific in nature to challenge the current paradigms of scientific literature....once evidence has been found that does not fit within the current theory. It is good to challenge, in fact that is how the body of our knowledge grows. However, you must present supported assertions as possibilities. To ensure that your ideas are supported, it is important to remember to look at new evidence from every possible angle. A great example of this is seen in the recent plate tectonic theory. This was an evidenced idea that was set forth to explain some recent discoveries that did not make sense under the theory of the land masses being stable. The scientific community did not like the ideas too much at first, but as the idea was researched (because they had reason to research it, i.e.-positive evidence) the evidence became so overwhelming that the old paradigm was discarded for the idea that better fit with the reality that we see.
I hope I made sense in all of that, kind of tough to keep my mind straight while typing at work. Hope to hear back from you as I am interested in hearing more of what you have to say as you continue to question things and look for truth in your life. And while I do not believe in God, like you do, may your God bless you in this search for truth!
™ Version 4.2
(1)
