Science is not immune from requiring faith...

"Ah, I found a bunch of fossils and bones. Ah, I shall date them. Hmm... I going to have to say that this one came from this, and this from this and then that. Yes, these things...hmm...evolved! Yes, they came from each other. I've never seen it, but I shall have faith that my intepretation is right. C came from B which came from A. You just got to have faith my friends, that I interpreted the data right, since I've never seen this happen."

That's pretty much how it seems to me. What say you ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I say you should study the matter before you go and publicly embarrass yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You should tell me what is wrong rather than tell me I will be publicly embarrassed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Start by learning how rock layers are dated, since fossils are usually dated by the layers they are found in.

For the most part, the deeper the layer, the older the rock. (There are exceptions. when folding has occurred, the layers can be inverted. But the geology makes that clear.)

Also, check out radioactive decay rates, and radioactive dating techniques.

The dating of fossils is not arbitrary.

 

In a sense, everything that anyone believes about anything is based on faith. You can never be sure that you're right about anything. In science, however, the faith (or perhaps "strength of belief" might be a better term) is proportional to the evidence.

 

Faith does not require evidence.

 

I never said it was arbitrary. I don't know where you got that idea from.

 

This is just semantics. Yes, in a sense, you have to have faith in logical deduction and your own intelligence and skill in interpreting data, but this isn't the kind of faith they talk about in religion.

 

"Ah, this evolution stuff. This makes me feel less special

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hmm... I have an idea, maybe this evolution stuff is a fairy tale, and I exist because of God, and God loves me and loves me forever and I will meet him and play with his hair one day. Yes, that's what happened. I wouldn't want to live in a universe were fairy tales like evolution were true."

 

That´s not how it´s happening. One can´t point arbitrarily two or more organisms to be related at his own wish. Biological relatedness predicts restrictions of what can be related to what.

Evolution doesn´t require any faith. Evolution is just modification in descent. For all we know, all living organisms are offspring (which considerably is allways modified from their parents, and this modification is possible of accumulation in its nature), i.e., they don´t spontaneously arise out of nothing, or from non-living matter.

Then, if there are two populations of different organisms that share enough of certain characteristics, they can be said to be related in some degree. And could be proven to not be biologically related if they were not.

Also, the possible evidences that would disprove evolution, of impossibilities of biological relatedness, and also of "crazy", chimaeric biological relatedness are far mor vast than the narrow possibilities of biological relatedness in a phylogenetic tree.

It´s more or less like seeing a track of a walking of someone and theorizing that it would be actually the vestiges of a walking left by someone who walked there. The other possibility, would be something random in relation with this proposed mechanism, say, a rain of shoes, or a explosion of a truck carrying shoes, and that the shoes then were all taken away by the wind, or by people that take them away without lefting their own step marks.

The latter hypotheses would predict a much less restricted pattern, as the inexistence of a real tree of life would predict. If all we find is evidence of a restricted mechanism, the walk of someone, or the biological descendence with modification, these must be what caused the result observed.

 

This observation isn't specific to Biology and Genetics, but rather applies to the whole of science. But your interpretation of it is wrong.

Scientists are at the distinct disadvantage of not knowing the correct answers ahead of time. In fact it could be said that scientists never know the correct answers, but rather get closer and closer to them as time goes on.

A simple model for the acquisition of scientific knowledge would be the following. You make a series of observations, and notice that they all have something in common. You formulate a theory (let's call it P) based on that commonality. Then you derive a prediction Q from P and see if it stands up to the test.

Now let's say that the prediction Q pans out. Then your allegation that this is all a matter of faith would be represented logically by the following logical schema:

P-->Q
Q
Therefore, P is true.

But scientists aren't so simple as to think that the above syllogism is valid. It is well-known that it is inductive and doesn't prove anything. Rather scientists take the following point of view towards confirmations of a theory.

P-->Q
Q
Therefore, tentatively accept P until it is falsified.

Now let's say that Q turns out to be false. Then we have the following schema.

P-->Q
~Q
Therefore, P is false.

That syllogism is valid, by means of it we conclude that the theory P is said to be falsified. Then they come up with a new theory and test it until it is falsified. As I said this model is simple, but it illustrates the fact that science is self-correcting and dynamic. How many systems of faith can you say that about?

 

And different data sets (fossil, homology, genetics, developmental mechanism etc) are compared with each other and found to correlate. Evolution is not about finding a bunch of fossils and believing in evolution. It's a theory that is backed up by a myriad of datasets. So far nothing has been found that falls out of place. And so far the theory has driven the generation of new questions which data is all fitting with the big picture. That's good enough for us scientists to declare a theory workable

 

The only thing scientists take of faith is the existance of a universe than can be studied objectively, which takes a lot less assumptions than the YEC "GAWDIDIT!"

 

Also, fossils are almost a meaningless detail in the comprovation of the theory. The extant liiving organisms already have their traits distributed accordingly ony in a manner compatible with a distribution predicted by the restrictions of descent, while without this resctriction, the same [restricted] result would not be expecteed, would be an astounding lot of coincidences.

It is funny that creationists make such emphasis on "lack of transitional forms" between species, since there´s an absolute lack of the far more numeroulsy transitional forms expected if there was no universal common ancestry.

If organisms were not originated with respect with the restrictions imposed by biological descent, we could expect far less restricted patterns of distribution of traits, simplistic examples would be monkeys with bird wings in their backs, sirens, photosynthesising animals, etc.

Organisms whose traits are not according to a tree-like distribuction, what would make possible to make thousands of very different hypothetical trees of life, but every single one would not be any better, any more biologically defendable, than a radically different one as a hypothesis of a tree of life.

 

<img width="195" height="258" src="http://www.p42.org/Nighthawk/owned.jpg">

 

Sorry. Your tone seemed to imply it. My mistake.

 

It is an interesting observation that scientists must place their faith (not religious mind you, but meerly the act of believing) in evidence. But I question the necessity of faith. What if one has no opion on a theory or the subject to which it pertains, or to go even further has no knowledge of the subject. Certainly data can be provided to the individual, but does that mean they also must have faith in evolution? If they do not know enough about the subject and the meaning of the evidence, they cannot see how it implies that the theory is correct (or more accurately as theories go: has yet to be disproved). True, scientists must have faith in the data they and others gather (faith in others can be difficult), but what the scientific community really should work on is improving their message in other to make such faith more accessable to those who do not understand it. I think this would be more important than providing additional data to increase the the "proof" of a theory.

 

If I understand you correctly...I think that science education is one very important aspect of what you are looking for. Understanding the basics, the basic priciples AND the basic philosophy of science.

I have read several creationist web sites, and I find that most of their arguments rely heavily on a lack of knowledge of logic, and a lack of even basic scientific knowledge. So, a trained scientist looking at these arguments finds them to be utter nonsense, but someone poorly educated in science will find the arguments compelling.

 

Even an untrained one such as myself. Dr. Dino is a classic example. (see his site.)

 

That is part of my point Poincare. But the problem lies deeper than just education. From what I've seen (and maybe others have seen differently), people who are not interested in science seem to have somewhat of an aversion for the people who do. The general idea of a going to a doctor so he can diagnose a disease you never had until you went to see him. They see scientists as a different group of people that they do not want to associate with. It would be difficult to get someone with this mindset to even listen to what you have to say about the topic. However, by introducing a concept they are familiar with (faith) and applying it to a new set of standards, it would be easier to bridge the gap. It doesn't necessarily have to be faith, it could be something like values or liberty or anything. But if scientists have an aversion to words like "faith" itself (associating it only with intelligent design or something), they are assuming things about non-science people and creating a bigger gap between the two cultures. In essence, they are no better than those who would criticise them for their scientific beliefs.