Proof beyond reasonable doubt and scientific proof.?

Question

When theists talk about "macroevolution" they will say that it has never been observed, which is true. We have never seen family to family evolution in action except mostly in the interpretation of the fossil record.

But in criminal trials we normally do not see the defendant committing the crime. So why do we use a lower standard for something with way bigger consequences? People can be killed and imprisoned for life for something that we never actually saw them do, we of course use evidence that was left behind that shows that the person or event happened.

So why do we use the "I never saw it standard" when it comes to science if the overwhelming evidence shows that something happened even when we didn't see it for ourselves? Why do we not use the "I need to see it" for criminal trials?

Another example is continental drift. If before we could measure continental drift would we be right in saying that it is real based on the ample climatological and paleontological evidence?

Answer 1

Evolution in action has actually been observed: drug-resistant bacteria and viruses.

Anyway, it is impossible to ever absolutely "prove" anything besides your own existence (that goes back to Descartes, actually). For all you know the entire universe could be some kind of hallucination you're having, you can never truly prove otherwise. If you're looking for religious-style claims of absolute truth in science you're looking in the wrong place.

Generally, a theory is "proven" when all the evidence we have points to it being true. All the evidence we have points to evolution being true. It's always possible that tomorrow God will come down and say "Ha ha, those fossils and everything was all a joke, I really did create the world in six days!" but from what we do know at this point creationism is so enormously less plausible than evolution that debating it at all is just beating a dead horse.

Creationists also tend to approach the debate as if it's a legal trial and creationism is the defendant (i.e. any 'reasonable doubt' of the opposing theory automatically validates theirs). Science doesn't work that way.

Answer 2

Theists talk about beliefs and are constantly looking for some little thing that might not yet be known about a scientific theory. If they would look at their beliefs with any kind of similar critical eye, their whole system of beliefs would fall apart.

As for criminal evidence, it has been shown lots of times that even if there was an eye witness, that witness was often wrong. DNA and fingerprints are more reliable. Lots of prisoners have escaped death row because of new DNA tests that are now available which weren't available when they were convicted based on an erroneous eye witness account.

As for another answer talking about Descartes, as far as I am concerned, what Descartes spouted - "I think, therefore I am" - is a bunch of nonsense.

Answer 3

The reason we've 2 standards is for the rationalization that many human beings are far greater well-off with killing any individual or putting them in penal complex for years on scant info than they are in saying that they possibly incorrect approximately some factor they assume in deeply. If we placed any individual to dying for the rationalization that info factors there, and we later desperate that we've been incorrect, we can say "i'm sorry" to the companion and teenagers of the sufferer, and could be pay them some money to make all of it surprising. on the choice hand, if we receive as info concerns which would be desperate in the archaeological checklist, or in genetics, as info that our non secular ideals is in basic terms no longer solidly commonplace, we would desire to admit that our view of the universe is faulty; that there is in basic terms no longer a hell, that there is in basic terms no longer god-given regulations because of the fact the muse for morals. Heavens! homosexuality could incredibly now no longer be a sin! If there is not any god to offend, some persons won't have a reason to act in a ethical kind. Society might desire to run amok actual for the rationalization that persons might desire to now no longer be threatened with eternal punishment. actual, persons who seem to god for guidance might desire to be like a missile without navigational technique; the smart bomb in basic terms became ignorant and unguided. I evaluate then, that faith is a impressive factor. It keeps people who like it from killing the entertainment individuals.