What's the best strategy for defending evolution?

Congrats on a Potm for this EZScience. I haven't followed the whole thread and hope you and others don't mind if I challenge a couple of aspects of what you say Unedukatted? It may be true, but I wonder did they include a graph showing the educational background of those involved.What we don't need a graph for, is to know that the majority of the large number of people who believe in evolution today have not got the in-depth education in the sciences that would truly allow one to give a reasoned basis for their belief. They were told so in school and on the tv - but telling somebody and them believing is not the same as them coming to a reasoned decision about its veracity for themselves. And nothing is going to change that fact. Faith in what science says will always be the reason most people believe in evolution - unless most become scientists. The ultimate trouble here is that science can never verify that this is the case. It can at best only ever claim to approximately the best way of approximating the truth. Approximating x approximating, is you will notice, a square function. A large reduction in the ability of science to claim to provide the "solid, unchanging truths about the world (or perhaps more accurately, themselves)" that people have sought forever. Religion has been in popular demand for millenia. Science has a hill to climb. This presupposes that faith in science can be increased to almost total proportions. But despite all the stunning successes of science, people resolutely refuse to give up on religious faith - as New Scientist points out. Atheistic communist regiemes succeeded in persecuting popular religious freedom of expression almost to the point of extinction - only to have it pop back into vibrant existance as soon as the pressure was removed. Nietzsche wrote "God is dead" The only thing we can be certain of in fact is that it is Nietzsche who is dead. God (of whatever hue) is as alive and well as He/she/it has ever been and shows no sign of going away anytime soon.As occupations go, science is vital to us, but there are many, many occupations which are vital too. Failing turning everyone into a scientist, the best that can be hoped for is to increase the masses faith in science. In that case, you are simply talking about creating another faith-based Religion. Welcome to the party!Religion is always about following laws and rules. Search as one may, one would be hard placed to think of a better raw material for a Religion than the realm of Science.This message has been edited by iano, 01-Mar-2006 01:36 AM

Its called faith

My reply to Crash was a follow on from a point made earlier to EZscience and it is that context that it should be examined. I see from replies that some have switched tracks to debate "what is faith" It was not the trust of my pointMy point was that, whatever about the potential anyone has to educate themselves to a sufficient level so as to satisfy themselves as to the accuracy and validity of evolution evidence, this will never actually occur. So if a large number of people who are not in a position to truly evaluate the evidence believe in evolution it will remain a trust-based belief for them.The predictable response is to point to the empirical nature of science as if this were the only way that facts can be established to a persons satisfaction (for that is what matters to a person). It cannot demonstrate with any degree of probability why anyone should take its word on this however. Cannot, except perhaps to point to the opinion of the many - as if this ever mattered in establishing veracity. Whereas science might comment on the probability of choosing the correct lotto numbers tonight, it can do so only when there are limits placed on what is possible. In an open-ended system such as that in which science and everthing else exists, no calculation of probability posing that what it describes is dealing within the boundaries of what is possible to be described, is possible.Therefore not even scientists can escape faith-based belief that evolution (for instance) happened, simply because they have no true boundaries within which to ascribe probability that it happened. In asserting that their faith or trust is different that a person who holds to religious belief, they can only point to the trust they have in a system which has erected artificial (in the sense they they are not objective) boundaries as to what constitutes knowledge, ie: "empiricsm is the only way we can know we know". Whilst agreeing that this is necessary in order for science to function, one should not forget that those boundaries are indeed artifical, not to say unquantifiable as to sufficiency.Without an anchor firmly attached to something solid somewhere along the line, science floats along in a sea of subjectivity. It is consistant only with itself and within its self-imposed limits. And its when its proponants forget the circularness of their reasoning and assume to assert even a probable level of certainty as to definitive fact is when Science is left behind and Scientism is embraced.Such scientists become the High Priests. The Peer-Reviewed papers treated just like Holy Scripture. And a raft of non-scientific science adherants, the congregation. We even have evangelists sent forth to the likes of EvC to spread the good news. Can you not see the hallmarks of classical Religion here?

As a general response to your post Crash, could you tell me how we verify that the scientific method supplies us with any degree of definitiveness as to objective truth or fact. In doing so, can you avoid pointing to the products that Scientific Methodology has produced. That would using SM to verify SM. Which would the circular bit I spoke of earlier

Do you agree with this CP. Or would it be more accurate to say that a high school student is only able to comprehend the structure when they accept that the companants are going to behave in a way they are told they behave? And do you accept that they are not in a position of expertise to decide for themselves that the componants will indeed act in the way they are told they will act?"Billions of years ago" they will be told. But they won't understand the intricacies of radiometric dating in order to understand whether the world is indeed old enough to provide the canvas on which evolution is presented. That the world is billions of years old or not is irrelevant. The student takes it on faith - not through self-establishment through expertise.If that is rebuttal then dearie me....

I won't be around long more at EvC CP. Time for other things. So maybe you could do me a favour and answer the question asked in my last post. I'm a bit long in the tooth here to be deflected by the old "fling religion at him - that'll throw him off the scent trick" I don't know much about US high school education but swallowing that such students can form anything other than pseudo-objective decisions about evolution (be it true or not) by being introduced to some basic concepts that would eventually be applied in direct study of its inner workings, is proving a tad difficult for me.If I don't talk to you again here then goodbye for now. It was pleasant to ding-doing with you. Hope things have settled out a bit on the Phd front (and that mom loves you still)Iano

Dunno why I tripped into this thread Percy. I've been around the block on this subject and shouldn't have really gotten involved without figuring to stick around to make a go of it. I see you've a PotM for it so if I may, I'll take the opportunity of the extra reads it may get just to say caio to the congregation here gathered.Thanks firstly to yourself as representitive of Admin in general. It's a fantastic site in so many ways and those who make it so have reason to be justifiably proud of the way it runs and what it attempts to achieve. Technically, operationally, moderationally etc. are all top drawer stuff. It has been a rivetting place to spend time.But it would be nothing without the folk here and it is that which I have enjoyed most and found most compelling. I take leave with a much better appreciation of the myriad of views that people can hold and the reasons why it is you hold them. Given the general background worldviews on display, I very often times could not but stand mouth agape at the skill with which you've presented your worldview-derived positions. Not that I'd go so far as to mention that fact of course - if there is one flaw with EvC it is the difficulty with which one tells ones opponant that they have made a brilliant point (or that they have missed a glaring flaw in ones own position!). It probably has less to do with a flaw in EvC and more that I've got some more growing up to do. Be that as it may.Thanks for your time EvC-ers. It really has been eye-opening in many ways. If I have learned anything, it has been about the people-behind-the-positions. Humanity is truly a beautiful thing to behold even in its fallen state and it is here that I have received another powerful glimpse of why God sent his son to die for it. Because we're worth it.If ever comes a point when your wandering around Heaven and you've got a bit of eternity on your hands, then do look me up will ya? We'll have a bit of a smile about this time of our lives. And I promise I won't say "I told you so"Many thanks,IanThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Mar-2006 02:58 AM