Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why should evolution be accepted on authority?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 136 of 166 (171270)
12-24-2004 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Sylas
12-24-2004 12:04 AM


Trustworthy Authorities
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Sylas, posted 12-24-2004 12:04 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by PerfectDeath, posted 12-24-2004 1:25 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 138 by berberry, posted 12-24-2004 2:52 PM NosyNed has replied

  
PerfectDeath
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 166 (171315)
12-24-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by NosyNed
12-24-2004 12:45 AM


Re: Trustworthy Authorities
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NosyNed, posted 12-24-2004 12:45 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 166 (171330)
12-24-2004 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by NosyNed
12-24-2004 12:45 AM


Re: Trustworthy Authorities
NosyNed writes:
quote:
...now we move on to how one would determine which "authorities" to trust. That can't be just on more authorities.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NosyNed, posted 12-24-2004 12:45 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by NosyNed, posted 12-24-2004 3:27 PM berberry has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 139 of 166 (171331)
12-24-2004 3:20 PM


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: 04-04-2003


Message 140 of 166 (171332)
12-24-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by berberry
12-24-2004 2:52 PM


Observing evidence
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by berberry, posted 12-24-2004 2:52 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by robinrohan, posted 12-27-2004 3:26 AM NosyNed has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 141 of 166 (171371)
12-24-2004 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by PerfectDeath
12-23-2004 3:29 PM


Re: Confusion
quote:
we don't see christians bitching about T0E
Actually, many biblical literalists do bitch about the ToE.
quote:
because ToE Directly contradicts the bible
So do many other scientific theories.
quote:
AND it does not serve then anny value.
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:
also they say that evolutionists belive we came from apes...
...which we didn't.
Humans and apes share a common ancestor.
Modern apes and humans are both primates.
quote:
APES little smelly monkeys
Apes and monkeys are not the same thing.
quote:
how can we degrade ourselves to say we came from them...
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:
the reassurance that we were made directly from God's image (this might be a big thing) and we were created supreme... rather than dirtly and weak.
...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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by PerfectDeath, posted 12-23-2004 3:29 PM PerfectDeath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by PerfectDeath, posted 12-25-2004 10:34 PM nator has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 166 (171447)
12-25-2004 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by contracycle
12-23-2004 3:42 PM


Politics and Culture
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by contracycle, posted 12-23-2004 3:42 PM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2004 12:00 PM robinrohan has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 143 of 166 (171448)
12-25-2004 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by robinrohan
12-25-2004 11:51 AM


Re: Politics and Culture
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by robinrohan, posted 12-25-2004 11:51 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by robinrohan, posted 12-25-2004 12:48 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 149 by nator, posted 12-26-2004 9:41 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 166 (171452)
12-25-2004 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by NosyNed
12-25-2004 12:00 PM


Re: Politics and Culture
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 looking
for 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2004 12:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by berberry, posted 12-25-2004 6:16 PM robinrohan has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 166 (171464)
12-25-2004 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by robinrohan
12-25-2004 12:48 PM


The Fundamentals
robinrohan writes:
quote:
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).
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by robinrohan, posted 12-25-2004 12:48 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Brad McFall, posted 12-25-2004 10:02 PM berberry has not replied
 Message 150 by robinrohan, posted 12-27-2004 2:49 AM berberry has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 146 of 166 (171489)
12-25-2004 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by berberry
12-25-2004 6:16 PM


Re: The Fundamentals
Yes, I also think the error affected effect extended back farther than the "wild'ness of my parents' music and generation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by berberry, posted 12-25-2004 6:16 PM berberry has not replied

  
PerfectDeath
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 166 (171498)
12-25-2004 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by nator
12-24-2004 8:13 PM


Re: Confusion
[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B][quote]
quote:
also they say that evolutionists belive we came from apes...
...which we didn't.
Humans and apes share a common ancestor.
Modern apes and humans are both primates.
quote:
APES little smelly monkeys
Apes and monkeys are not the same thing.
quote:
how can we degrade ourselves to say we came from them...
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:
the reassurance that we were made directly from God's image (this might be a big thing) and we were created supreme... rather than dirtly and weak.
...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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 12-24-2004 8:13 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by coffee_addict, posted 12-25-2004 11:07 PM PerfectDeath has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 148 of 166 (171501)
12-25-2004 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by PerfectDeath
12-25-2004 10:34 PM


Re: Confusion
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:
Ecclesiastes 1:6 states:
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by PerfectDeath, posted 12-25-2004 10:34 PM PerfectDeath has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 149 of 166 (171544)
12-26-2004 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by NosyNed
12-25-2004 12:00 PM


Re: Politics and Culture
FYI, there is also some Creationist activity in Austrailia as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2004 12:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 166 (171657)
12-27-2004 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by berberry
12-25-2004 6:16 PM


Re: The Fundamentals
The author I cited wasn't talking about the word "fundamentalism." She meant the wave of miltant fundamentalism that arose in 3 religions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by berberry, posted 12-25-2004 6:16 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by berberry, posted 12-27-2004 3:09 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024