Just What Justifies Belief in Evolution?

[Noitartst]

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable."--Sir Arthur Keith

I'm curious. What makes you so confident in something a lot of famous evolutionary scientist have themselves claimed to be unprovable? Why is it supposed to be so useful, anyhow? I've never quite figured that out.

The reason Sir Keith gave to believe in evolution is unscientific, isn't it? If scientists really do embrace evolution on such a basis, that would be shameful, wouldn't it?

Evolutionists, do you agree or disagree with his assertion? What would be a better reason?

Evolutionists, if you believe something to be a fact, and act on it, yet admit it can't be proven, isn't that akin to faith? And yet you call your belief "scientific," isn't that a bit ironic?

Science should be justified by evidence, yes? Isn't that what science should be about, belief based on evidence? Based on my observations, the "usefulness" of evolution is that it allows a scientist to create a secular narrative to stuff that has happened in the past, not because it's superior to creation. Is my observation essentially wrong? If so, why?

[Wave]

Some branches of science cannot be fully proven by experiment. That doesn't mean they don't have proof.

Off the top of my head, other sciences like that include astronomy and branches of mathematics.

Fossils, dating, genetic tracing all show that species change over time. The earliest of fossils only show organisms with primitive versions of circulatory systems eyes etc.

Micro evolution has been observed (including speciation), whereby the traits of a species can change depending on its environment.

The simple mechanism of variation and natural selection leading to evolution covers all bases. But you can't prove it's the ONLY mechanism at play any more than ANY branch of science (sure the water's boiling at a certain pressure and temperature, but how do you KNOW god isn't turning it into vapour?).

It's a scientific theory as sound as atomic theory and the theory of relativity. The only reason evolution gets so much critcism is because it directly conflicts with religious beliefs.

Basically, you can't ever prove god isn't helpiing out (with anything). But it's incredibly naive to then make the leap that evolution is an unscientific anf somehow faith based.

[A very curious being]

Well, let's think. What makes more sense? A bearded man in the sky who was suddenly nowhere and created things out of nowhere, then took all the credit for it when we tried to disprove "his work"?

Or science; the solid proof and attempted recreation of The Big Bang, a process involving a single concentration point which expanded and then slowly formed other things? Like an egg within an egg within an egg. It explodes and out of it forms scrambled egg, omelettes, boiled eggs and chickens?

Belief in evolution is justified by what can definitely be proven and/or disproven. We have seen hominids develop from quadrupeds to bipeds. We have seen proof of the existance of dinosaurs. We have had a massive fuckin' bowl thing attempt to recreate the big bang.

What does that say?

(ps this thread has Kovich written all over it)

[Wave]

I don't really like the above post. It provides alot of ammunition for creationists.

1) It's not what makes more sense, thats pretty relative, it's what evidence supports. Does gravity affecting relative time make sense? Does the fact that space itself is expanding make sense?

2) Evolution doesn't cover the start of life, only it's development.

3) The big bang isn't (normally) disputed because it falls into the acceptable region for religious. The universe started from nothing, sometimes the timescales ar eoff though. Not to mention there's amassive amount we don't know about it.

The thing is, you can believe in god and accept evolution. It's just evolution negates the need for god as the only explanation for the diversity and complexity of life.

[Ich_Bin_Butler]

I can't prove and believe, 100%, without a doubt, that gravity is real. Maybe one day I'll drop something and it'll float.

In fact, I think quantum physics suggests somewhere that these things are minutely possible.

Evolution is supported by evidence. If there's not enough evidence, we need to keep searching for more until we either prove or disprove the theory.

[Noitartst]

Some branches of science cannot be fully proven by experiment. That doesn't mean they don't have proof.

"That doesn't mean they don't have proof"? Wouldn't it be better to say they don't have evidence," or or "proof," and evidence synonymous in you parlance?

Off the top of my head, other sciences like that include astronomy and branches of mathematics.

Fossils, dating, genetic tracing all show that species change over time. The earliest of fossils only show organisms with primitive versions of circulatory systems eyes etc.

Micro evolution has been observed (including speciation), whereby the traits of a species can change depending on its environment.

The simple mechanism of variation and natural selection leading to evolution covers all bases. But you can't prove it's the ONLY mechanism at play any more than ANY branch of science (sure the water's boiling at a certain pressure and temperature, but how do you KNOW god isn't turning it into vapour?).

It's a scientific theory as sound as atomic theory and the theory of relativity. The only reason evolution gets so much critcism is because it directly conflicts with religious beliefs.

Basically, you can't ever prove god isn't helpiing out (with anything). But it's incredibly naive to then make the leap that evolution is an unscientific anf somehow faith based.

[Ich_Bin_Butler]

Not having proof isn't the same as not having evidence. And there is evidence for evolution. What is your point? You can't say "you don't have proof so you also have no evidence." There is, for example, evidence that OJ Simpson committed a murder. You wouldn't say there wasn't evidence.

[Wave]

"That doesn't mean they don't have proof"? Wouldn't it be better to say they don't have evidence," or or "proof," and evidence synonymous in you parlance?

You can't have proof without evidence. That doesn't mean they're synonymous.

If you have strong enough and a significant amount evidence, it is effectively proof.

In evolution's case, there is definately a large amount of correlating and cohesive evidence with no major pitfalls.

The amount of evidence, and the strength of it is proof.

I can guess the reply I'll get, so I'll elaborate a bit.

I can't prove you took my pen if all the evidence I have is that there's black ink on your hand.

If however I inscribed my pen, and it was found with your fingerprints on it in your wallet that's alot of correlating evidence all poiting to an explanation. Theres no footage of you taking it, but we can deduce form the weight of evidence that you took it. The evidence proves it.

However, there is no experiment that can prove it was you who took it.

[Noitartst]

I don't really like the above post. It provides alot of ammunition for creationists.

1) It's not what makes more sense, that's pretty relative, it's what evidence supports.

Don't they kinda go part and parcel?

Does gravity affecting relative time make sense? Does the fact that space itself is expanding make sense?

Does supporting a theory that seems to fly in the face of the Law of Biogenesis make sense? Does using micro evolution to prove macro make sense?

You said, "Micro evolution has been observed (including speciation), whereby the traits of a species can change depending on its environment."
You further said, "The simple mechanism of variation and natural selection leading to evolution covers all bases."

You seem to be citing natural selection, and genetic adaptation, which are parts of micro evolution, and as you say, they have been observed. The example of 19th century moths is a classic example, as are the the finch beaks Darwin saw on the Galapagos.

Thing is, micro evolution is about preserving species, not making new ones, as evolutionists have admitted. If micro evolution is all about preserving life in the form of species, and macro evolution all about preserving life in the form of new species, then aren't they at cross purposes?

It seems to me that on the one end of the evolutionary rainbow, macro's battling against entropy and the Law of Biogenesis (entropy makes for a very good mechanism, or explanation, for that Law, don't you?) and you've got micro, in the form of natural selection working for moths to stay moths via recessive traits that come out when needed.

I'm no scientist, but it appears to me that using micro to prove "evolution" (AKA macro0 is a little dishonest. Why? Well, Darwin's finches differentiated, but they still remained finches, remaining within the continuum of a single species, right? The moths evolved alright, during that soot plague, but they evolved right back to their dominant genes after it abated, retaining their species stasis via the use of micro evolution.

Evolutionists, in my experience, tend to blur the differences between micro and the macro, which as a result makes it appear that "evolution" is "evolution," but if micro evolution really is about species preservation, isn't it akin to mixing apples and oranges?

I presume that Sir Keith was talking about macro evolution, because species change does occur, and Darwin was right about natural selection, but anything used out of context is just wrong.

Natural selection is justly called a cornerstone of biology, but it gets me when it's used to justify "evolution." Why? Because in science journals, they never seem to distinguish between micro and macro, but the gulf betwixt them is as if it didn't exist.

As a result, macro evolutionists (and you seem to be one) may triumph genetic adaptation (which is basically little more than built-in species flexibility, which some, like dogs/wolves, seem to have in greater abundance) and natural selection, but for the reasons given, I can't help but ask, "Why?"

[Noitartst]

You can't have proof without evidence. That doesn't mean they're synonymous.

If you have strong enough and a significant amount evidence, it is effectively proof.

Sounds fair enough.

In evolution's case, there is definitely a large amount of correlating and cohesive evidence with no major pitfalls.

Then clearly, you do not believe the Law of Biogenesis, entropy, or micro evolution to be "major pitfalls." Please explain why they aren't.

[quote=Wave;58228]The amount of evidence, and the strength of it is proof.

I can guess the reply I'll get, so I'll elaborate a bit.

And what reply is that? You logic strikes me as sound, so far.

Makes sense. I don't know how different this thinking is from my own.

However, there is no experiment that can prove it was you who took it.

Have you ever read anything by Philip Johnson? If he's the one I'm thinking of, he's quite lawyerly on the topic, causing some critics to write him off because that wasn't "scientific," though I haven't read him myself.

Just wondering.