|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why should evolution be accepted on authority? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
so it is still better for the novice to be guided by trustworthy authorities. The most appropriate access to evidence is by reading trustworthy authorities I do agree but now we move on to how one would determine which "authorities" to trust. That can't be just on more authorities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PerfectDeath Inactive Member |
Then you get into trust. Can you trust someone to do that? I certanly do not. So, because of that I do not accept on athority.
also on note to my spelling and grammar I tend to type fast; therefor, i do not take the time to put in thouse corect words/grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
NosyNed writes:
quote: No, but I suppose we must concede that such a determination probably is influenced by our own personal biases. So far we've been talking about why evolution should be accepted on authority, per the thread title and OP. Evolution is one specific area of science where it is in fact difficult or impossible to observe any evidence directly. However, there are other areas of science (astronomy might be one example since telescopes are widely available) where it's not so hard. Plus, the fact that all science is based on mathematics makes a difference for many of us. Rrhain, for example, identifies himself as a mathematician. Thus he's able to investigate much of the evidence for all types of science for himself even if he never enters any sort of lab. I myself am not very proficient at math, but my mother is a mathematician. I have access to her and therefore I have someone close who I can turn to when I'm confused about the mathematical basis for some scientific concept. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if we can find a source of information that is consistently correct in reporting scientific findings and evidence wherever we can do at least some of our own investigation, we are likely to trust that same source to report correctly those scientific findings and evidence that we can't so easily investigate. I myself look first to see whether a source of info on science is biased toward supernatural belief. If it is I reject it without a second thought: science, as has been pointed out millions of times on this forum, deals with the natural world. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. Its concepts and laws cannot be applied to the supernatural and thus any authority that attempts to do so should be automatically suspect. EDITED to correct spelling error. Like PerfectDeath sometimes I type a little too fast, and sometimes I even click 'Submit Now' too quickly when I should click 'Preview'. This message has been edited by berberry, 12-24-2004 02:56 PM Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Asking hard questions of authorities is the only possible way to advance your own knowledge.Do these authorities actually understand the concepts they are dealing with and if so can they convey it sufficiently well that you can judge for yourself? It may be that you will indeed be unable to do so since the capabilities and talents of anyone person do not translate into every field of endeavour.
Mathematics in theoretical physics is beyond most of us and yet the math is necessary to keep a grip on the physical nature that is studied.Quantum mechanics requires an exceptional attention to detail across a wide range of phenomena. All is not lost in this way since it is within everybody's ability to view the outcome of experiments.If the authority you are dealing with can correctly gauge the outcome of experiment with a reasonbly accurate quantity that they arrived at prior to the experiment being done then it follows that they are in the ballpark as far as understanding their field goes. Proper investigation of a field allows not only an aquisition of knowledge but a grasp of the substance of the way things work in general within that field.Experts in a field who break away from the main pack can also contribute and sometimes even change the understanding generally but only by being capable of explaining their new knowledge but also the knowledge of everything gathered through the effort of others. Einstein superceded Newton by being able to explain things that Newton's science could not as well as all those things that Newtons sciencecould explain. This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-25-2004 12:31 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Evolution is one specific area of science where it is in fact difficult or impossible to observe any evidence directly. This seems to be stuck on the idea that observing means seeing and touching for onesself. I disagree with that statement. For example, I can draw my own logical conclusions. Does the idea that imperfect replicators subject to selection changing the nature of the population of them make sense logically? To me it does, given the description of the process it seems impossible for evolution not to take place. To me that is a personal "observation". Can I look at various fossils? Sure I can. Can I discern subtle differences by myself? No, but I can see some of them if pointed out. I sure as hell can tell the differences that have happened over deep time. Can I go out an look at geological formations? I have done so. Eventually, in fact pretty quick, I do have to decide to take what I'm told at face value. But the fact that I could, in principle, check up on a lot of things makes me more inclinded to accept that what I'm told has been checked out. I also use all sorts of personal filters to pick and choose what I accept. THat is, does it 'sound right' and 'hang together' for me? Does it fit in with other things I know more about? My personal view of things is built up a bit like the body of knowledge taht we have aquired as a species. It is added to bit by bit. It is plugged into the overall framework and needs to fit there. As a minor example: Do I believe in 'psychics'? No! Why? A whole bunch of reasons. One might be that I know something about humans. None of these show up as being rich by using this extra knowledge. (they might get richish by selling books and bilking people) They don't appear as the big stockholder in companies they bought before it became a hit. They don't seem to be avoiding plane crashes more than others. There is nothing that sticks out from the background. What they claim they can do requires something for which there is no other reason to think exists. All these things pile up and I come to a conclusion (somewhat tentative to rather firm depending on the nature of the claim -- e.g., pretty tentative for or against acupuncture, very firm against 'healing touch') that it just ain't real. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-24-2004 03:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Actually, many biblical literalists do bitch about the ToE.
quote: So do many other scientific theories.
quote: The science of Biology doesn't serve Christians any value? Christians don't use any modern medical knowledge? Or genetics? Tell me, do Christians use DNA testing?
quote: ...which we didn't. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. Modern apes and humans are both primates.
quote: Apes and monkeys are not the same thing.
quote: Why do you denigrate any of God's wonderous creations? The Bonobo chimps that are are our closest relatives are much physically stronger than we are, and far, far less violent than we are. We could do well to emulate some of their behaviors.
quote: ...but humans are dirty and weak. Certainly, we are not as physically strong as Bonobo Chimpanzees. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-24-2004 08:13 PM "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Am I correct in assuming that Creationism is a purely American movement?
If so, the more I think about this bizarre phenomenon, the more I think it is part of a large cultural American attitude that we could call "anti-intellectualism." Where it came from I don't know. But I suppose intellectualism has the tendency to create uncertainty about the most basic questions of life, and so that might be a reason for somebody despising "intellectuals." They want certainty. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-25-2004 11:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Merry Christmas!
We have some pockets here in Canada Robin. The valley just east of Vancouver has some Christian schools. The prairies (especially Alberta) elects some politicians who are fundies. However, those politicians can be publicly laughed at here they are in a minority. There is much, much less political influence of that kind of thing here. That is why we are about to legalize same sex marriage across the country (though it almost is on a province by province basis as it is). A politician who put his beliefs ahead of others gets in trouble here. There are also Muslim fundies as well so I would expect pockets there as well. I do know (from here) that there is a bit in England but not a lot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Merry Christmas, Ned!
I recently read this book by Karen Armstrong (a historian of religion) called The Battle For God, which discusses the fundamentalist movement worldwide--Christian, Muslim, and Jewish. All these movements began about the same time--back in the 70s--and they are all responses to perceived declines in morality and religion (the wild days of the 60's). Armstrong's thesis is that religious stories (such as the Christ story or Genesis)are MYTHOS as opposed to LOGOS. Mythos is not meant to be taken literally; it is meant to provide a meaning for life. LOGOS is a literal description of the world (science). Armstrong says that the mistake fundamentalists make is treating mythos as though it were logos. They are lookingfor logos in the wrong place, often with disastrous results. I'm way off topic, but the point I guess is that Creationism is just one aspect of the whole fundamentalist movement. Here's another point I picked up from Armstrong: Only 6% of the English population claim to be religious. In America, the number is around 90% (I don't recall the exact figure). That's a vast cultural difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
robinrohan writes:
quote: The movement of Christian fundamentalism might have had a resurgence in the 70s but it dates back much farther. In fact, the word 'fundamentalist' as we've come to understand it comes from The Fundamentals, a series of books published early in the 20th century as a reaction to both the teaching of evolution and to what was called the 'higher criticism': criticism of the bible that went beyond simply the meaning of the text but dealt with deeper questions regarding the reliability, accuracy and authorship of the text. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Yes, I also think the error affected effect extended back farther than the "wild'ness of my parents' music and generation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PerfectDeath Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B][quote] quote: ...which we didn't. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. Modern apes and humans are both primates.
quote: Apes and monkeys are not the same thing.
quote: Why do you denigrate any of God's wonderous creations? The Bonobo chimps that are are our closest relatives are much physically stronger than we are, and far, far less violent than we are. We could do well to emulate some of their behaviors.
quote: ...but humans are dirty and weak. Certainly, we are not as physically strong as Bonobo Chimpanzees. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-24-2004 08:13 PM[/B][/QUOTE] 1. for the most part i know that we didn't evolve from Apes... but i'm quoting what others said to me. 2. and a lots of people can not diferienchiate from monkeys and apes still i'm quoting the average person's response. 3. and finally the people I talked to about it obviously like to think themselves far suppirior than anny other species... egocentrics (think i spelled it wrong) 4. yet again people like to think they arn't dirty and weak. so what it all comes down to are people riddiculing something that they do not understand... and they do not even understand themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
First of all, forgive me for jumping in in the middle of your conversation. I haven't had the time to go online much these past few weeks. There is something I would like to add.
You (PerfectDeath) originally writes: because ToE Directly contradicts the bible Schraf, in response to you, writes:
So do many other scientific theories. The bible specifically states that the wind goes north and south. We know this to be false because through science we have learned that the wind blows east and west.
quote: Added by edit. On a side note, this thread on style guide will help you greatly. Please take the time to look over it. It will make our lives a lot easier when reading your posts This message has been edited by Lam, 12-25-2004 23:11 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
FYI, there is also some Creationist activity in Austrailia as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The author I cited wasn't talking about the word "fundamentalism." She meant the wave of miltant fundamentalism that arose in 3 religions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024