

There's More to Science Than Evolution - tokenadult
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/04/theres_more_to_science_than_ev.php

======
jacquesm
The reason why evolution stands out in contrast to other questions is because
the church never got around to making a 'genesis' that flat out contradicts
the size of an electron or how lasers function, and then turned this in to a
central piece of their doctrine that supports a whole pile of other religious
concepts.

Also, evolution operates on time-scales that most humans have trouble
perceiving and/or thinking about so it is a convenient concept to create doubt
around, even if it is one of the best supported scientific theories out there.

~~~
torial
"even if it is one of the best supported scientific theories out there."

While it certainly has more evidence than AGW, it doesn't hold a candle to
relativity (general or specific) or newtonian physics or a whole slew of
chemistry theories.

I do agree w/ the first part of that sentence, that the large time scales are
hard for people to wrap their mind around, and thus lends itself to a natural
doubt of it.

~~~
pmiller2
"...it doesn't hold a candle to relativity (general or specific) or newtonian
physics or a whole slew of chemistry theories."

I don't know if that's necessarily true. It's certainly not possible to
measure how "accurate" the theory of evolution is, because it's not that kind
of theory. It doesn't really make many (any?) specific predictions that can be
tested in the same manner that those of relativity or chemistry can. On the
other hand, I think our odds of discovering something tomorrow (or even in the
next hundred years) that cannot be reconciled against evolution are
significantly lower than the odds of us discovering something in the same
timeframe that's inconsistent with relativity.

~~~
torial
We can't borrow from knowledge we'll have tomorrow, any conjecture on what
will be found is at best a hypothesis in its own right. Data and verification
for relativity is just well established (but arguably more research dollars go
into that than evolution).

Viewing the odds of discovering something tomorrow or the next hundred years
is very subjective -- case in point, I view the odds of discovering something
contradictory to evolution far higher than something contradicting relativity.
So we are at an impasse, and I'd suggest we need to go on what we have now,
rather than how something _might_ unfold based on our own biases (I am not
denying my inclination towards astrophysics!).

If evolution could be harnessed to make verifiable predictions, I think it
would be further along in terms of being a grounded and less disputed theory
(with the understanding that no matter what, there will be dissenters). Or if
alien life was found, I think evolution science would benefit from having a
second playing field and _might_ be on a better footing.

~~~
jacquesm
> If evolution could be harnessed to make verifiable predictions

That's an 'ID' talking point and verifiable false.

There are many thousands of cases where evolutionary theory could be used to
predict the outcome of an experiment and each and every one of those has held
up.

The interesting one would be the first -and only- counter example required,
but to date not a single one has been found.

Support for evolution is rock solid, to the point where the only people that
try to undermine it usually have some kind of political agenda to push.

You have to hand it to the ID (formerly creationist) groups though, they are
doing an excellent job of sowing doubt amongst the uneducated, and they are
getting skilled at the debate to the point where all but the most interested
lay people can see the holes in their arguments.

But when they go to hospital and need treatment suddenly science is a-ok and
never mind the fact that these bacteria have evolved to become resistant to
such and such an anti-biotic, give me the stronger stuff...

Your viewing of the 'odds' of something turning up that would contradict
relativity is at odds with that of for instance, one Albert Einstein, who
searched for a way of unifying general relativity with electromagnetism,
without success. Once found it is widely believed that either one or both of
the 'parent' theories will need some adjustment.

Evolutionary theory is _much_ more vulnerable to falsification, a single
example of a creature that could not have evolved and it would be history. In
spite of millions of species that we can observe today and the many very
motivated people searching for such a counter example none has been found.

~~~
roundsquare
_But when they go to hospital and need treatment suddenly science is a-ok_

I find this statement to be disingenuous. I would be hard pressed to believe
that (most) creationists are against science in general or think that science
itself is generally wrong. In fact, they seem to try to make scientific type
arguments, and I'd suspect that most IDers believe that the arguments are in
fact _good_ science.

~~~
jacquesm
It isn't disingenuous in the least. Science is a method. You either accept
that method or you don't, you can't pick and choose. If you are not an expert
biologist you probably shouldn't hold expert opinions on the subject, just as
you are probably not an expert surgeon so you shouldn't hold expert opinions
on surgery.

To choose science for one specialty but pseudo science or dogma for another is
inconsistent. The scientific method has brought us both surgery and insight in
how we came to be here and so on. It's hypocrisy to claim special knowledge
about our origins absence any evidence, but to be happy with the fruits of all
that labour when it suits you.

I prefer the (true) Mennonites in this respect, at least they are more or less
consistent in their beliefs and their application of those beliefs. That
doesn't make them less wrong, but they are at least not guilty of hypocrisy.

You can't be against evolution and against science at the same time, evolution
_is_ science, and science at its best.

Just like science put men on the moon and freed us from the shackles of the
church it will occasionally cause a change of belief, either by replacing a
wrong theory with a better one or by proving a widely held belief to be false.

The only reason the ID'ers try to make scientific type arguments is to sound
more plausible when faced with scientific opposition, not because they've
suddenly seen the light. And dazzling the masses with pseudo science is a
great way of confusing the issue, right up to the claim that ID is just
another 'theory' that should be given equal time in education.

~~~
roundsquare
_You either accept that method or you don't, you can't pick and choose._

 _To choose science for one specialty but pseudo science or dogma for another
is inconsistent._

Yes you can (edit for clarity: Yes you can use dogma for one domain and
science for another). It is perfectly consistent to say that the word of god
is the ultimate truth but where god is silent on an issue science is the next
best thing. There is no a priori reason to claim that the scientific method
will give more accurate results than the word of god. The fact that science
needs to keep updating itself is, for some (most?) people evidence enough that
it can't be as accurate as the word of god.

But, thats not my point.

Most people get whatever knowledge they have of science from sources several
level removed from the scientist. As a result, they don't get access to see
the _true science._ Instead, they take what they hear from (seemingly)
credible sources and trust it. Maybe they put some thought into the arguments
given but generally they don't, especially if no one is disputing what they
hear.

With evolution though, there's people yelling at them from both sides. Both
sides use what seem to be logical sounding arguments (though, under close
inspection, one side's logic breaks down). In addition, one side also claims
to represent god, which they are told is the _ultimate truth._ In their minds
therefore it becomes:

Science vs Science + Ultimate Truth

It doesn't take a genius to see which side would win in that battle.

However, with medicine, God appears to be essentially silent on the matter.
There are no options to weight. Everyone agrees. Nice and simple.

So yes, there is some hypocrisy, but its limited to the politically motivated
few who are pushing the ID agenda. The masses are not guilty of true
hypocrisy.

~~~
jacquesm
God is silent on all issues.

It's men talking, pretending to be speaking in the name of god, and using the
gullible masses to prey upon them and create power structures.

That's a bit of a difference.

I think the bigger problem here is that science is simply hard work and that
even for a lay person to understand all but the most basic science requires
some serious dedication.

Much easier to believe someone that claims to have all the answers in an easy
to digest form with a catch all clause at the end. ("God did it").

When science was 'new' (as in, when it started to replace the various gods of
old) it wasn't seen as much of a threat, and when it did the occasional
scientist found himself put on 'trial' and silenced or murdered.

Now the whole of science is on trial, with the ignorant masses used as an
endless supply of funds to further the goals of a few scared old men. It's a
sad state of affairs.

In a time when information is available to all those that want it, it is
disappointing to see that so many prefer to live in a life of illusion. We
have _real_ problems and all the time and effort that goes in to reducing
reproductive rights, the affairs of consenting adults and to put the lie to
our origins is taking valuable time and energy away from more pressing issues.

Modern medicine would not be possible without a rigorous application of the
scientific method. DNA evidence is used in courts of law. Speciation has been
observed under laboratory conditions. And yet there are those that would deny
others the knowledge of these truths to further their own goals and to extend
their power.

