Hello Again:
In post 94
robinrohan writes:
Evolutionist: What I don't understand is why the creationist can accept other scientific discoveries on authority but cannot accept evolution.
Creationist: Because no one has ever witnessed macro-evolution.
What is the evolutionist's reply at this point?
Hmmmmhow about look at the evidence as a reply? Even a layman can, if they are so inclined, examine enough of the available evidence to reach the only plausible scientific conclusion, which is that the diversity of living things on this planet is a result of decent with modification.
now
robinrohan writes:
What they might read is popular science (such as Asimov's books)
Yeah, and they might also read crap like Dembski’s
The Design Inference, or Behe’s
Darwin’s Black Box, or Johnson’s
Darwin on Trial, or any other creationist literature, but yet we don’t hear you or anyone else complaining about accepting those publication on authority. Let me ask you, robinrohan; do you accept both types of publications, (peer-reviewed scientific literature and Behe’s book, for example), equally? Do you have equal faith that both are correct? Do you accept both sources on authority?
Crashfrog has explained that by and large we do not just accept scientific publications on authority, because the evidence is out there for anyone to examine (quite a bit of it anywayplenty, in fact, to grasp more than just the basics of the theory). You then asked if there are other concepts that can’t be proven that we none-the less accept in the same way that we accept the ToE, to which schrafinator responded with three examples. Yet we do not see people demanding that other ideas addressing these issues be taught in our public schools. So I ask again, robinrohan; at what point do you say enough?
You went on to say that since we can deduce mathematically that the Earth rotates around the sun; we are not accepting it on authority. Ok, I’ll biteshow me the math and prove to me that you understand it. Otherwise I will simply assume that you are accepting on authority that the equations are correct. Do you know for certain that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is correct? How about quantum equations? And on and on it goes. So what’s your point? If we follow your logic then we accept everything on authority, not just the ToE, but yet you’re not complaining about anything else.
To me, the whole argument comes down to this: Scientific investigations are set up in such a manner as to avoid the very sort of thing you are complaining about. The results are peer-reviewed and then published for all to see. Do I understand Quantum Physics or String Theory? Hell nobut I trust that other experts do understand. You call that accepting it on authority and I do not (as explained by crashfrog and percy in previous threads), but yet we NEVER see creationists bitching about anything other than the ToE. Why is that?