What gives you the right to pick and choose what things scientists believe are true?

Question

You trust a doctor when he treats you for cancer.
You trust an engineer when you take a flight in a 747.
You trust a pharmacist when he mixes medicines together.
You even run away when a meteorologist says a tsunami is approaching.

But you don't believe 98% of scientists that say evolution is fact. Your picking and choosing of what to believe is irrational. Or do you have another explanation?

In science there is no such thing as 100 percent certainty. But, The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that scientists say the probability of it being true approaches 100 percent. The fact that creationists say they are fully 100 percent certain of their view is based not on scientific evidence but, as their own literature says, on their faith in the literal truth of Genesis, which gives rise to doubts about the scientific case.

Answer 1

... and there are so many other things in science which are less certain than evolution but Christians don't "ooo" and "aah" over them because they don't conflict with their Start-Of-The-World fantasies. Christians don't make the same big fuss about the scientific explanation for pulsar emissions, or the estimation of the size of our galaxy, or whether there are alternative universes. Now there's a thought.

Christians - you make all this fuss about evolution but you don't say "boo" about the theory of parallel universes & of higher dimensions, or the possibility of time travel, or the speed of light, or an extremely large number of other things which are equally or more uncertain in scientific terms. Don't some of these conflict with your Bible? For example, if nothing can travel faster than light how can God be omnipotent? The speed at which God can act on the physical universe is limited by the speed of light. Doesn't this limit God? Don't you want to OBJECT TO THIS?

One thing that makes me laugh (and laugh and laugh) is the crazy idea a lot of christians seem to have that if they can debunk evolution then the only alternative that is left to people is genesis. That is so incredibly dumb.

I can understand christians being rather more trusting of technology and applied science (as in your examples) because the fact that the technology & medicine works most of the time shows that the underlying science is a fairly accurate model for physical reality. The accuracy or otherwise of pure science isn't so visible to the man & woman in the street.

Answer 2

As someone with a degree in science, and years around universities, scientist, and teachers, I can assure you that your claim the 98% of all scientist believe in evolution is not true.

Neither is you assumption that all people instantly true their doctor for cancer treatment. Having gone through it will my wife, we (and most of the other patients we spoke to during that time) often questioned the doctors, looked at alternative treatments, some have gone to Mexico for treatments not available in the US, or refused treatments.

Take a survey of how many people do not fly because they don't trust the 747s and other planes.

Very few pharmacist today "mix medicine". They get a bottle of it, count out the pills you need, and put them in a smaller bottle for you. So that one is kind of pointless...

And of course you have read of the number of people who have NOT fleed from tsuanmis, New Orleans, etc. because they doubts the disaster predictions.

So why would we swallow the whole evolution teaching, especially since scientist are no where close to undertanding it. Every week I read of a new theory, a revision in the time lines, a correction to previous beliefs, etc. Every single scientist today is still questioning some aspect of the theory because it is not yet fully understood (or proven). Until it is - or is at least a whole lot closer that it is today, I will do the same as them.

Answer 3

I believe some people have gone out of their way to equate evolution with atheism, therefore a wedge has been purposely driven between science and religion. There really are some people who believe that if you accept evolution then you must abandon your religious beliefs, therefore those people will never accept evolution.

Edit: To the person above me who cited two well-known hoaxes, that by no means shows how science in general is wrong. That actually proves the brilliance of the scientific method. When one makes a scientific claim, that claim is subjected to rigorous tests by any and every one. Using that approach, bad science and hoaxes are eventually revealed or weeded out. Science is adaptive to new information. Why is it that people generally only point out past scientific mistakes in regards to evolution? Those instances should make one a bit more skeptical, but not just with evolution. So many people, especially in this section, will quickly just say "science has been wrong before" and then dismiss whatever scientific theory they don't understand or don't like. The point the questioner makes is one which you prove. Why do so many doubt very particular parts of science so much so as to label them wrong in the face of massive amounts of evidence, then those same people just accept other parts without so much as a second thought. Why, when a doctor tells you what treatment he/she might try to fight your cancer, would you not start demanding the exact and precise proof that the treatment will work? Why don't you tell your doctor "well, scientists have been wrong before so why should I believe you"?

To Dewcoons: Strange how you cite your degree and years of experience to show that you know the 98% statement is not accurate, then you make the startling proclamation that "every single scientist" is questioning some aspect of evolution. Amazing. You must be VERY well-travelled. I believe you make a good point, though. Scientists are not questioning whether or not evolution is a valid scientific theory. That has been determined in their community. They are extensively studying the mechanisms of evolution and constantly learning how it happens. Oddly, people use this further research to declare that the jury is out on evolution, when this actually shows that evolution is valid and scienctists are doing what scientists do, namely continuing to research. It would be simple to prove evolution to be false, as with any scientific theory. The difficult part is answering every single question. Some people will not believe evolution until every single question is answered, and that will never happen. So I am like you, I will go with the scientists on this one : evolution is the only valid explanation at this time for the diversity of life on the planet.

To Scott B: Not that this will help, as you have made up your mind and are waiting for something that will probably not be found, but your statements are representative of a large group of people. The problem is you have no idea how insignifigant and immaterial they are. Only a fraction of scientists are actively pursuing any so-called "missing link", and they are certainly not doing so to prove evolution to you. The fossil record is only a small part of the evidence for evolution. Also, it doesn't help your argument to make up a statement (98% of scientists don't believe man came from ape), credit it to the person you are arguing with, and then say that staement is wrong so the questioner is wrong.

Answer 4

I beleive what scientists say, however I beleive scientists are somewhat ego-driven and never want to accept new findings from other scientists.. (some) because of ego, pride and a sense of superiority. I don't completely trust Doctors, and certainly not engineers.. but, I "hope" that everything goes well. Knowing that humans make mistakes, you cannot fully trust in anything human related. Scientists say life cannot come from non-life, yet it had to begin somewhere, yet my high school biology teacher answered "well, the atmosphere must have been different back then" Physicists are now starting to calculate the odds that life arose by chance, and are finding that is impossible. It is a mind boggling conundrum, but I have come to the conclusion that there is a force unseen behind everything, and anything more detailed is just personal beliefs.

Answer 5

Actually I don't trust any of them. However, there is evidence that most of the time the doctor, engineer and pharmacist are accurate. Meteorology is frequently inaccurate, but it's worth being cautious.

My own small look at some evolutionary principles tells me that it might well be right, and in the absence of anything more likely, that's what I will go with.

My look at religion yields results along the same lines of 'evidence' as a good conspiracy theory, and my reaction is pretty much the same: Give me evidence and I will listen, otherwise you are talking out of your fundament.

Answer 6

I also believe in both and I don't see how evolution opposes creationism. Evolution explains how organism change to adapt to their surrounding environment but it does not say anything about the origin of life or universe. No matter whether you are religious or not there are only two possibilities either whatever it is always existed or it poped out of nowhere into existence.

Answer 7

1) I don't always trust doctors, engineers, pharmacists,
or meterologists, do you?

2) Scientists don't even follow their own rules when it
comes to macro evilootion.

3) The majority is often wrong.

4) Belief/trust/faith in science, NO! Science is about
constant discovery. While amazing and does have
practical application, also illusive by nature, always
changing with new discovery.

Answer 8

The treatments for cancer have been proven.

The assembly and flying of a 747 are proven technologies and training.

The pharmacist has been trained and can prove that the medicines he administers work.

You can prove that a tsunami has formed and is moving in the right direction.

However, there is no concrete proof of evolution, just a few fossils and plenty of theories and suppositions. Also, when any evidence is shown that refutes any of the practices or ideas above is shown, the doctor, engineer, pharmacist and meteorologists changes their practices and follows what is proven. When evidence against evolution is found, the evolutionist ignores the evidence and continues to hold to their theories.

Answer 9

....and every single one of that 98% you speak of will identify, when pressed, evolution as a "THEORY," which is NOT fact. If that, to you, is rational thinking - deliver me from it! By the way, doctors are often wrong, pharmacist likewise, 747's have been known to crash and meteorologist get it wrong almost as often as they get it right. Poor examples all. Place your life in the hands of science if that's the best you have, but don't call me irrational for placing my trust in God. (spell check not working - please excuse any errors).

Answer 10

Not that I am a creationist, heaven forfend, but face it, sweetie. Scientists are just as prone to error as the next person. They are also prone to self-interest through dicey experimentation and unrecorded data that conflicts with perceivable reality.

May I just make mention of Piltdown Man? And Lysenkoism?