Posted by Walker on May 12, 1998 at 12:26:45:
In Reply to: Is evolution based on faith? posted by rpcman on May 12, 1998 at 10:17:51:
I think there is a major difference. Scientists support speciation and evolution w/o performing tests of their own for several reasons. The first is probably the difficulty and time such a test or experiment requires. It is sort of like a geologist giving up his or her profession because he or she can't recreate a natural volcanic explosion on demand or observe the continents move thousands of miles apart. The second reason is that so many different aspects of science already support the theory (paleontology, biology, genetics, etc.). The old saying that is something like 'nothing makes sense in these areas of science without the theory of evolution' still holds true. There is no 'better theory' that fits the facts that can be used as a control to perhaps falsify the theory of evolution. Finally, those who get up and state items of faith in testimony meeting aren't relying on scientific principles at all. They aren't looking for a theory which best fit the facts. Statements of faith are made which are usually (if not always) contradicted by facts (and statistical analysis).
Yes, I agree science is more discriminating in its use of supporting evidence. I agree scientists shouldn't have to verify everything that has already been learned. But mistakes do happen, even in science; so I would imagine that each scientists develops kind of a mental database of who is doing what research and whether or not it is credible. For example, I'm sure when Piltdown man was exposed as a fraud, evolution took a hit in some scientists' minds. But as more (legitimate) evidence of missing links was found, the theory of evolution (specifically, man evolved from a homonid) regained credibility.
I don't think I'm so much trying to find a better theory, as I am trying to patch up the holes (that aparently only I see) and improve the existing one.
It's important that in our quest to promote knowledge we take a step back and say to ourselves, "Is there really experimental evidence to support this?" Baxhorn tries to find this evidence for speciation. He seems a bit surprised that there is not as much as one would expect.
Still, the evidence for evolution seems quite solid, but there is no reason why shouldn't question it from time to time, especially a theory supports and is supported by related fields like paleontology, biology, genetics. Scientists question each other all the time, which is a very good for many reasons:
1) Science is based in a sense on faith (or belief, or trust, to avoid religious conotations). Scientists have to trust that their collegues have done their work properly -- no fudging around. A fruitful scientists must stand on the shoulders of others. But before she risks her neck, their is no reason why she shouldn't do a little double checking to make sure her footing is secure. (faith without works, etc.)
2) The more something is questioned, and solid answers are consistently returned, the more confidence we have in it, the more predictable and useful it becomes.
3) Questioning exposes errors, weaknesses and consequently can invalidate a theory, or cause modifications to the theory that make it stronger.
4) Sometimes a bold (or silly) question turns established science on it's head and a breakthrough is found: Bohr's [I think] quantum theory, Gallileo's moons, etc.
I guess I'm bothered by this attitude that "ample evidence already exists, we need no further proof". Well, this kind of sounds like, "A bible, a bible. We have got a bible." A repeatable, verifiable exeriment would not only lend additional support to the theory of evolution, but consider the possible windfall: a) how to reliably direct evolution, b) how to accelerate useful mutation (not just wait around for it to happen), c) improve methods for detecting when evolution has happened; gene mapping etc. 4) create new species, or possible recreate extinct ones through devolution. Well, maybe I'm just talking science fiction now.