For those who don't believe there's any truth to evolution...?

Question

For those who don't believe there's any truth to evolution:

How dare you continue to use electric lighting, computers, and automobiles? All of these things exist because of the work of scientists and engineers, the same people who UNANIMOUSLY say that evolution is indisputable. Even when science has gotten things wrong in the past, it's never gotten things COMPLETELY wrong. If science is completely wrong about evolution it will be the first time science has ever been completely wrong about anything since it came into existence in the 17th century.

Thoughts?

Mariah: It's not like that at all, because all Christians believe in science. Do you believe your car and TV will work the way they were intended to? Then you believe in those aspects of science. There are probably no aspects of science you DON'T believe in other than evolution.

Mawy: If he was smart enough to figure things out, and he tends to be right about most stuff, then he's probably right about evolution too, right?

prozit: But you DO check the evidence before you decide whether your new fear of flying is reasonable or total BS, right?

shivercraft: Why do none of the reputable scientists acknowledge the "missing link" issue as a fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution? If you can't answer this question, what business do you have making up your mind?

valcus43: Truth vs. falsehood is the way they see the world, so it's the most appropriate language. And the institutionalization of the scientific method indeed came during the 17th century -- don't mince words.

Yeow Teng K: The people who successfully figured out how to make the inventions you trust every day believe they have figured out how human life emerged, too. See the correlation?

Balaam's Talking Donkey: Not silent, just eager to immediately decide there's no relevance.

Biblehelp: The order of the scientific movements/discoveries/etc. is beside the point. The point is the the people who brought you the modern technology upon which you depend all advocate evolution. It's an appeal to a worthy authority, get it?

Stephanie: But science says that the body definitely did evolve, and science has proven that tends to be at least SOMEWHAT right about virtually everything. Even when theories are rejected, new theories incorporate aspects of the old ones, because there were good reasons supporting the development of those theories to begin with.

treycadeboy: You're welcome to rattle off the names of some scientists who have done evolution-related research and concluded that it's not the most likely explanation for how human beings formed. The only ones I've heard of have been thoroughly discredited, if they even approached their work seriously enough to be considered in the first place.

Aquila:
- Evolution can be de-evolution
- Whatever problems Vista has certainly do nothing to discredit the competence of scientists, unless you have evidence of there being software experts who, despite having all pertinent information, admit that they can't understand some aspect of Vista and how it works.

zzzzzz6: You're not seriously under the impression that people are willing to go out of their way to give themselves a chance to be proven wrong, are you?

VICTIMZ™: Whether or not they're atheists has nothing to do with anything. Plenty of theists believe in evolution. Also, my point isn't that all scientists believe in evolution -- it's that all scientists WHO HAVE STUDIED EVOLUTION believe in evolution (with exception for the methodologically discredited, of course). The average engineer and even a large percentage of natural scientists is likely to be ignorant of the details of evolution, and that makes their opinion worthless.

kerry k:
- As I've said above, only the opinions of scientists who have studied evolution/human origin are worthy of consideriation.
- If you know of some who have formally declared their disenchantment with the idea of evolution, please list them.
- Disagreement over HOW evolution occurred is beside the point. The agreement is that it did.
- If you read carefully you'll see that I never said evolution was proven fact. Of course, there's no such thing as "proven fact." Even gravitational pull is just a theory. There are, however, degrees of certainty, and the scientific community has an extremely high degree of certainty in its belief that some sort of physical evolution produced humankind.

preachershoe: Close, but not quite. I said that scientists have never been COMPLETELY wrong about anything since the 17th century. When they've been wrong -- which is often -- there have always been substantial truths mixed in. I'm not saying scientists are 100% right about evolution, just that they're considerably above 0% -- as they have been since the 17th century with respect to every significant phenomenon studied. If you can name an exception, do so.

L P: You make excellent points, but your example of pellagra doesn't apply. The opinion of one scientist is not the consensus of the scientific community, even if that one scientist manages to get his conclusion declared the basis for public policy. If you can provide examples where the scientific community AS A WHOLE were categorically wrong on something -- that is, proposed a theory which was later shown to be based in total fiction -- then you'll have a compelling argument.

chancelikely: You are correct -- my sole argument consists entirely of an appeal to authority. The main thrust of the argument is that it is a worthy authority. If so, this is in no way detrimental to my argument.

wolf: Yes, evolution is a theory, not a proven fact. Just like the existence of gravity. Both are overwhelmingly likely to be accurate descriptions of reality.

Answer 1

Science can err—with important social outcomes—as documented in some dramatic historical cases:
Early in the 1900s scientists disagreed about the cause of pellagra, a prominent disease in rural southern America. Some contended it was a dietary deficiency, others said it was caused by a germ. Each theory led to a different course of public action. An independent commission was established to resolve the debate scientifically. Its head was Charles Davenport, director of the prestigious Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.3 Ultimately, the commission concluded that pellagra was, instead, genetic. In retrospect, we can see Davenport’s biases. He was a racist and eugenicist, who saw the problem of the poor as their own shortcomings, not caused by social conditions. The “scientific” conclusion was wrong, yet it remained the basis for policy for many years. Later, Joseph Goldberger identified pellagra as a vitamin deficiency. Davenport’s evidence seemed to support his theory because persons in the same family tended to share the same impoverished diet.

Errors in scientific claims can remain for decades.



Davenport also exercised great influence in conceiving intelligence (as measured by IQ) as hereditary. Social implications included immigration and eugenic social control of reproductive rights. Should “feeble-minded” persons be prevented from having children, based on the scientific claim that they would only produce more “feeble minded” to burden society? Were individuals from certain geographical regions or races inherently inferior mentally, such that the government should limit admitting them into the country? Davenport studied numerous families and presented his findings in terms of genetic pedigrees. He persuaded many people to believe that low intelligence was genetic, not a product of an environment and poor education shared by successive generations of the same family. Immigration quotas and sterilization legislation followed from Davenport’s and others’ “scientific” claims and remained for decades.
These two cases of historical error underscore the social importance of understanding the potential for scientific error. They also provide clues about how to analyze scientific claims for such error. A full understanding of science thus includes understanding how it can err, and how such errors are themselves discovered and remedied.


Real science consists of a system of checks and balances.

Errors in science (that is, real science, not idealized science) vary considerably. Some may be relatively minor, such as failing to follow an experimental protocol properly, observing a small sample (unrepresentative of the whole), or overlooking a relevant control. Scientists generally learn how to reduce such errors during their apprenticeship in a lab. But the social framework of science also provides an important safeguard. A community of scientists, when it reflects contrasting perspectives, functions as an extended system of checks and balances. Importantly, not everything that is published becomes accepted fact!
Errors may be easy or hard to find and correct.
Other errors are deeper and harder to find or correct. Like those involving Davenport, they may be disguised in common cultural assumptions. Those who use scientific conclusions, as much as the scientists themselves, must be alert to such possible errors.

Evolution is merely a scientific "theory", it is *not* a proven "fact".

Answer 2

Not all scientists would agree with you. I have had the pleasure of meeting several over the years that are fully aware that evolution just can not have happened as is so often portrayed. Even in those who are adamant that evolution just has to be the answer to the origin of all life, there is continual debate over what THEORY is correct and which is not. A theory, by the way, is a guess as to how something came about or operates. A theory, by definition is a "guess", and not a fact. In your zeal to uphold the scientific beliefs that many debates rage about, you have forgotten one of the key rules of scientific investigation, observation, and provable data. Regardless of their best efforts, there has been no sustainable evidence that evolution is the final solid answer to the origin of life. In your tirade, you make yourself far worse than those that you rage about. You have proven that you really do not have as much data to support your conclusions as you would like to believe. Take a closer, unbiased, non-prejudiced look at the complete scientific community. I believe that you'll be shocked to find out that there are many scientists that are positive that evolution is a lot of hocus-pocus. That, however, requires a truly scientific mind that seeks the complete truth, and it appears obvious that you are not capable of that.

Answer 3

I agree with your general idea but it would be a bit more technically accurate to omit the word "truth" in explanations since it carries the emotional baggage of permanence. Scientists embrace impermanence and change through added data and more detailed explanations.
Science did not come into existence in the 17th century, it has been in existence for ever and appears whenever people use an empirical epistemology.

Answer 4

I'm going to be a bit picky here.

Your main argument is an appeal to authority itself.

And acceptance of evolution is not unanimous among the scientific community. Of course, scientists in the biological sciences named "Steve" who accept evolution outnumber scientists of any field who believe in special creation, but it's not unanimous as such.

Answer 5

I have a problem with believing in a scientific theory without a missing link to validate it. You show me the monkey/human hybrid, and i will acknowledge the theory as a fact. Why can I not use this simple logic when it is the same logic the scientist you mention use to dismiss God or a higher power?

Answer 6

Because you can see it works, but most people don't see that evolution works. What people trust does not depend on their understanding of science, but on the everyday experience. If an airplane falls down, you don't check the scientific basis before you decide whether you should be afraid of flying.

Answer 7

It's a popular misconception that all scientists and people in the fields of natural science are atheists;and you can't tell me that engineering is somehow, heavily dependent on the theory of evolution.

Answer 8

You're wrong. Electricity and the light came before the theory of evolution, and the automobile got it's start earlier too. Computers, well, I could sure do without all their viruses.

Answer 9

When people say they don't believe in evolution they don't mean, evolution of the brain. They mean evolution of the body such as monkey to human. Science is simple logic it doesn't mean its necessarly true. Gods word is most importantly the TRUTH

Answer 10

I think before you use terms like UNANIMOUSLY, you should make sure you can back your facts up. The truth is there are many scientists who don't believe in evolution.