What's the best strategy for defending evolution?

Do you really believe it's that hard to substantiate the theory of evolution? That it really takes years of study? I mean, seriously? I've never seen an anti-evolutionist come up with an argument that withstood even cursory examination here on this forum, and the vast majority of us here don't have degrees in biology. I don't even have a degree in anything, yet. That doesn't explain why many, many people who are not scientists can so easily defend the theory against the arrayed forces of religionism.You know, many people - just about everyone - accept the statements of their doctors with literally no ability to assess the results of tests or diagnoses on their own. Does that make all of America "medicists?" We hire lawyers to navigate the minefields of the criminal and civil legal codes, because we often can't understand legal machinations without years of study - are Americans largely "counselists"? Is that "lawyerism"?It's not faith that we have in scientists, or doctors, or lawyers; it's trust. Trust, because our continued acceptance in their conclusions is contingent on those conclusions being borne out. Trust is what you have when something hasn't let you down before. Faith is what you have in spite of being let down. There are relatively few things I have faith in, and science isn't one of them. I have plenty of trust in science, however, because science gets results. That which does not exist cannot, of course, go away. Everyone is a scientist, about some things at least. Absolutely everyone recognizes the utility of empiricism for learning certain things about the world. Indeed the only people who don't recognize the superiority of empiricism in regards to knowing things are the people with ultimate faith in philosophy - philosophists? - like yourself, who are far more committed to the destruction of knowledge than to its increase.

Really? I suppose you have the evidence to support that assertion?Actually it really takes very little education to understand that Evolution happened and that the TOE is the best explanation available today. The evidence really is overwhelming.On the other hand, it takes wilfull ignorance to believe in the Classical Biblical Creation myths, and complete denial to believe in a Young Earth scenario. But there is nothing in science that implies, or even suggest that folk give up religion. We need to continue to point out that there is no problem between Christianity and the TOE, Old Universe or any other area. The only problem is between those who pervert Christianity and consciously ignore the evidence and misuse the tools that GOD has given us.There is no need to incourage Faith in science, science is not based on faith, but on doubt. And because the basis of science is doubt, not faith, it has the possiblitity of actually getting closer to truth than faith ever could.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is very true. I think a thread might develop this point further

You are currently arguing against empiricism in another thread so this is an interesting point to see you try and make. But that's not to say I don't agree to a large degree with what you are trying to get at... though you're terminology is wayyyyyy off.Pretty much everyone is a philosopher. People want to know about things, if not know about most things. They want to be able to work in the world based on that knowledge and not look like an asshole by being caught making something up.Most people eventually realize, or usually by default, trust their senses as a basis for knowledge. Experiences from the world. Although for some, abstract reflections, or semi abstract reflections are thought useful, usually for subjects we have less experience regarding. Those who engage in abstractions are not any more or less philosophers than those who use empiricism. They use a different method, and it is historically less accurate, but it does not have to be antiknowledge.Both empiricists and rationalists were considered scientists at some point in time. Some nonempiricists even managed to get fantastic conclusions which are still relatively viable today. However over time the practice of science became more restrictive in method, such that only certain philosophers were within that realm. Indeed empiricism is not the only criteria.The fact is most people are NOT scientists. While most may base their knowledge on empiricism of some kind, direct sensory experiences, modern science is more restrictive than that. Unfortunately most people don't seem to understand this distinction and so believe they can argue their way through to a conclusion about what is real in the world.Nowadays this consists of people sitting before a computer telling actual scientists with degrees and work in the field, how wonderful "science" is, and what it consists of, and that they themselves are "scientists", only to turn around and tell the actual scientist he's wrong about his own area of study based upon logical fallacies and dearth of evidence which is not acceptable to modern science.Everyone THINKS they can be a scientist these days, most particularly posers who think a stated allegiance to a contemporary scientific theory means they are up on (more scientific than) someone who does not... including other scientists. This is one of the key problems in science today. It is so popularized, it has shifted backwards such that moderan science is losing its rigor within the population.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-01-2006 10:56 AM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

quote:

---

The fact is most people are NOT scientists

---

I'm glad somebody said this. There is a big tendency in America for those without any science background whatsoever to dismiss entire fields of biology offhand because it contradicts their personal mythologies, while at the same time admitting they know nothing about the particulars of the fields. For example, quite a few creationists on this board admit (or demonstrate by what they say) that they have absolutely no understanding of genetics or molecular biology but make brazen claims about the "dishonesty, stupidity, or incompetence" of actual molecular biologists. As you have suggested, people seem to equate uninformed opinion with scientific theory. They take the oversimplified press reports of scientific discoveries and think they suddenly have as much of a scientific background as a bench scientist. Science is a tough business and often counterintuitive and difficult to understand. Tough..if it was easy then everyone WOULD be a scientist instead of the vanishingly small percentage of Americans who actually are scientists.

quote:

---

This is one of the key problems in science today. It is so popularized, it has shifted backwards such that moderan science is losing its rigor within the population.

---

I disagree. This is the key problem with the popularization of science. Actual science is continuing as it always has. If anything the field I am working in, for example, has become even more rigorous. There is something to the ivory tower mentality among scientists. Most of my colleagues are unaware of the EvC debate. They are working scientists who get their grants funded and papers published by their peers i.e. other working scientists in their field. They could not care less what a school board consisting of non-scientists have to say about evolution or molecular biology. They may only indirectly be aware of the consequences when their labs fill up with foreign researchers who actually have a science education.What has gone wrong is that the American public has become ever more poorly educated in the sciences and rely on heresay, dumbed down accounts of scientific discoveries, and science fiction movies in determining the veracity of what science has to say...meanwhile chugging down pills and medicines that are a directly based on theories they claim are false. Sad and ironic.But I would still make the distinction that modern science has not lost its rigor. But popularization has gone so far down market that it is starting to overlap with the scientific and fact checking rigor of the Enquirer.

Its called faith

Good to see you again... and good catch. Maybe I should have said a key problem FOR science, instead of IN science. Those in the know will still produce good works, though they may end up being undervalued and dismissed out of hand by the growing "science unsavvy" public.Then again, I am worried about movements by some within science who have embraced unscientific methods, or pseudoscientists to "grow" a field through popularity, both attaching themselves to actual scientific institutions and resources like leeches.Your point stands though, which is in part why I said science wont die. There will always be a core of people working on advancing modern science, while storms of popular mythmaking rage outside their ivory towers... uh, well scientists don't get paid enough for ivory or towers anymore, but you get the picture.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

No, it is called 'stupiity'.When it comes to medicine, there is this little key phrase for important medical decisions known as the 'second opinion'.

iano, You're equivocating. An attempt to conflate a trust in those who have studied evidence with blind faith in the unknowable. They can both be called "faith", but they are very, very different beasts.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Crash used the word trust, and one of the definitions of faith can be used as a synonym for trust. In that sense of the word both you and Crash are saying the same thing. When anyone says they have faith in their lawyer or doctor or electrician they mean they trust him. They definitely do not intend the definition of faith that means a "secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will" (from Answers.com).One of the common creationist arguments against evolution is a semantic claim that it is religion. Creationists will say, "Evolutionists believe in evolution, while creationists believe in God." Or they'll say, "Evolutionists have faith in science, while creationists have faith in God." But because one definition of belief and faith is being applied to evolution and science, while a different definition is being applied to religion, the argument contains a simple logical fallacy and so fails.--Percy

While I agree what you detailed is an equivocation, and how that equivocation is often used, there is an aspect where theists also are using "trust" instead of "faith".Let's use crash's example. Just about everyone accepts the statements of their doctors with literally no ability to assess the results of tests or diagnoses on their own. That is true and it is a state of "trust", or "trusting in".But isn't that exactly what theists are also doing? They accept the statements of their clergy or their religious texts with literally no ability to assess spiritual claims on their own. It is not simply that they have "faith in God", though there is that. They are actually putting trust in people or writings they recognize to be official regarding something they feel, but do not fully understand.To be honest people may have their trust misplaced in either group. I might have a feeling that the doctors are less errant more of the time, but theists may feel the same about their clergy or text. When in doubt many place their trust in someone who appears to be knowledgeable in a subject, regardless of whether they deserve that trust objectively.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

And that is the crux of the problem. You have those who accept their clergy's statements or religious texts with no way to asses those claims on their own. They simply accept them according to their own personal bias. Most have no way to assess scientific claims on their own but simply reject them based on their personal preferences rather than from informed reasoning. The kicker is that the latter is not necessary. Anyone can learn the science if they really want to. Scientific claims are assessible by study and experiment and there is a highly effective enterprise called methodological naturalism that is highly effective at determining what is nonesense from what is likely. And what is best is anyone regardless of their background can reproduce (or debunk) any set of experiments. Heck, most of the raw data (at least in molecular biology) is freely available online. Assessing religious claims are not (except where they make innacurate claims about physical reality such as flat earth or cud chewing rabbits) assessible in this way. Thus, creationists conflate their inability to assess their religious beliefs in an objective way with their inability and unwillingness to understand science.

Yes, such arguments are common. There, I disagree. The argument is not intended to be logic, and therefore cannot be a logical fallacy. The argument is intended to give highly gullible people an excuse to dismiss science and its evidence in favor of illogic and belief.At that, it often succeeds.

No, it's called "trust". I'd like to point out that I did anticipate this argument to some degree:

quote:

---

It's not faith that we have in scientists, or doctors, or lawyers; it's trust. Trust, because our continued acceptance in their conclusions is contingent on those conclusions being borne out. Trust is what you have when something hasn't let you down before. Faith is what you have in spite of being let down. There are relatively few things I have faith in, and science isn't one of them. I have plenty of trust in science, however, because science gets results.

---

Well, except for the results. I mean, either you get better, or you don't. If your doctors conclusions don't result in you getting better, you usually go to another doctor.If your lawyer's advice doesn't pan out, you hire a different lawyer. But religions have built-in explanations for their utter failure to actually bring about what they claim they were going to bring about, so it's pretty rare that anybody gets a second opinion on their religion. In fact one of the prized aspects of religious faith is that you keep believing even when it seems like you're just not getting results (see "Footprints.")

quote:

---

In fact one of the prized aspects of religious faith is that you keep believing even when it seems like you're just not getting results (see "Footprints.")

---

Or the results themselves are rather ambiguously defined, or deferred until after death (see "Kiss Hank's Ass").

---

"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