quote:
I assumed the topic was based on the title. I guess I was wrong. "How can biologists believe in the ToE? I think that is self explanatory.
Well, the topic is based on the opening post, not the title.
The opening post explained what was meant by the title (which was a paraphrase of someone who was incredulous that anyone would accept the ToE), and expanded upon the implications of that position for professional scientists.
Such a claim has logical consequences. Like, if it is true, then you must believe that all Biologists, Paleontologists, and Geneticists are so dunderheaded and horrible at doing science that they don't realize how wrong they all are about everything they've discovered. Or, you must believe that there is a worldwide conspiracy among professional scientists to delude the public into thinking that the ToE is true when it is really false.
quote:
More appeal to authority. classic.
This is not an appeal to authority. It is merely the logical implication of your position.
quote:
It only takes a few (or one) bad assumptions to corrupt a scientific study.
Sure, but you aren't talking about one study. You are talking about hundreds of thousands of scientists in various fields being completely wrong about the fundamental unifying theory for all of the Life Sciences.
It would be similar to saying that Physicists are wrong for accepting the Atomic Theory of Matter.
But anyway, who do you think discovers if a scientific study is wrong?
quote:
I'm not attacking their research, only some of their assumptions and conclusions.
Learning how to test hypotheses is the entirety of the Graduate and Post-Doctoral training of any scientist. This includes how to make valid inferences (conclusions) from the evidence.
If you are attacking their conclusions, you are attacking their ability as competent scientists.
Since all current work is based upon past work in science, don't you think anybody working in Evolutionary Genetics, say, might notice that the Genetics papers they are basing their own research on are fundamentally flawed? How is it that scientists currently working are able to make successful predictions based upon all of this faulty past research?
So, are you saying that people who believe in God only have a tentative belief in God which could be rejected if new evidence comes to light?
quote:
"only" is the key word. Limiting it to your thought, very unimpressive. Why do people incite me to write negatively, as if your purpose is to lure me into these little squabbles. Am I to let these just lie?
Unresponsive.
You claimed that people believe in God and science both based their belief upon;
quote:
Experience, evidence, data, hypotheses, theory, assumptions.
One of the basic tenets of the scientific method is that of "tentativity", which means that no theory is held to be an unchangeable eternal truth and can be challenged with appropriate evidence at any time. Indeed, overturning old dominant paradigms in the light of new and compelling evidence is how careers are made in science. Correcting errors in work made by past researchers and refining the knowledge those in the past provided us in the present to base our work upon is how all progress is made in science.
This is how science operates. New findings that contradict old ones are not rejected outright just because they contradict; they are tested and tested some more to see if they hold up. If they do, then the old theories are modified or rejected in favor of the new.
Is this the way people wo believe in God think about their faith?
With constant doubt and willingness to set it aside when something better comes along?
If you don't think either one of these scenarios is correct, then what is your explanation for why these hundreds of thousands of professional scientists have gone so incredibly wrong in their science over the last 150 years or more?
quote:
Your question seems to circulate around the idea that all scientists research the same sciences.
No, not at all.
However, the ToE is supported by many diciplines other than just Biology; the findings of Geology, Physics and Genetics are all consistent with, and in fact strengthen, the findings of Biology.
quote:
If a paleontologist suggests through research that birds and dinosaurs have common ancestry then the biologist will study how this could be possible. Not, as I understand it in most cases, to prove something right but more to line up with a certain theory for ill or good.
Any scientist will note in a paper if their finding contradicts or coincides with the rest of the body of evidence in their field.
quote:
Why do I think these people are wrong?
The list you provided doesn't really answer the question of the OP, though.
Do you really believe that hundreds of thousands of scientists over 150 years have been so very bad at doing science that they haven't noticed what is so incredibly obvious to a few religious non-scientists; that the fundamental theoretical underpinnings of all of the Life Sciences is completely false?
That if they would just read those Creationist websites they would realize that everything that any Life Scientist has concluded from their research in the last 100 or more years is completely misguided?
™ Version 4.2