Trusting the experts

[twrobson]

I am assuming that the majority of viewers and participants of this forum are not scientists, have little or no formal training in the relevant fields, and therefore cannot speak with authority regarding the scientific evidence for or against evolution. The purpose of this post is to explain why we nonscientists nevertheless ought to accept evolution.

First point: Evolution is so well established by science that it is not an open question.

Evolution is no doubt a controversial issue. This is made clear by the fact that so many people argue about it. But it is not an open question. An open question is an issue about which there is official disagreement or doubt among the proper authorities. Ask the proper authorities, namely scientists, what caused the extinction of the mammoths. You'll get a range of answers (disease, overhunting by humans, climate change, a combination of any or all of these, etc.). The cause of the mammoths' demise is thus an open question. Ask scientists whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. You'll get a variety of answers (yes, no, maybe so, I don't know, probably so, probably not, etc.). The existence of extraterrestrial intelligence is thus also an open question. Ask the proper authorities, in this case historians, who it was that assassinated Abraham Lincoln. You will get one unequivocal answer - John Wilkes Booth. The identity of Lincoln's assassin is thus not an open question. If you reject the findings of the proper authorities on a matter that is not an open question, you've either got a lot to learn or a lot of explaining to do.

Now there is no official disagreement or doubt among the proper authorities, namely scientists, that evolution is true - that all species are related and that life has been evolving on planet Earth for roughly four billion years. There are of course many professional scientists who disagree, but that still does not make evolution an open question. Why not? Because their dissent is without sufficient merit to render it official. And how can we know that? Because their dissenting views do not appear in mainstream scientific journals. Of course it is easy to find scientific cases against evolution in libraries, bookstores, particularly christian bookstores, on the internet, and even on TV and radio. The problem, though, is that any crackpot can present any quack theory through any of these media. But since the science journals are peer-reviewed, it is difficult to publish one's work in them unless it is of high quality and great merit. This is where the "big boys", the top scientists working on the frontier, publish their work and their findings. Their articles are primarily written by scientists, for scientists, although anyone who is interested can read them. This does not mean that everything in the journals is gospel truth. Writers may deal with open questions, and much research will inevitably become outdated. But everything in the journals, at the time it is published, at least has enough merit to be worthy of consideration. (Once in a great while, a journal may feature a work of poor quality, but this is due to human error and is very rare.) Thus junk science has no place in the science journals, and that includes creationism and intelligent design.

Of course, creationists publish in their own journals, but this only indicates that their work is unworthy of consideration by the professional scientific community. Creationists may even sometimes publish other sorts of work in science journals (work not pertaining to evolution). But I contend that in no reputable journal do there appear any explicitly creationist articles. If I'm wrong, show me. Show me any mainstream science journal (such as Science or Nature) in which there appears an article (the more recent, the better) which clearly argues or implies that evolution never happened. Better yet, show me several such articles. You won't find any. For that matter, show me an article in such a journal arguing that evolution DID happen. You won't find that either. Why? Because evolution is common knowledge among scientists, so there is no need to argue in its favor. You'll find many articles regarding evolution, but they address the details of the process - not whether or not it happened. There is therefore no official doubt in the scientific community that evolution is true, and so it is not an open question.

Second point: It is irrational to reject anything that is established by proper authorities.

This is not an invitation to brainwashing, nor is it an elicit appeal to authority. It is only common sense (for those of us who are not experts) to accept what the proper authorities have concluded. I believe, and am quite justified in believing, that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa, not because I can see it or because I have made observations and performed calculations to reach that conclusion, but because this is what scientists know from the work of people who have. I know that the speed of light is roughly 186,000 miles/sec, not because I personally have measured it, but because I have learned it from reliable authorities, who ultimately learned it from people who have measured it. And I am quite rational, indeed obliged, to accept evolution, not because I have studied the evidence, but primarily because I know that evolution is what is accepted by the experts, who have studied the evidence.

From these two points, it follows that any rational thinking, educated adult, living in this day and age, believes evolution.

Now for those creationists who would argue that the Bible is a more reliable authority than science, I ask: If it were shown that somewhere in the Bible, there was a passage that clearly and unequivocally taught that the earth is flat, would you believe it and deny all scientific evidence to the contrary? If there were a passage that clearly and unequivocally taught that the moon was made of green cheese, would you believe it and deny all scientific evidence to the contrary? Would it not be far more sensible in these cases to admit that the Bible is in error? It makes no sense at all to use the Bible, or any book for that matter, as a standard to judge the evidence. We should use the evidence to judge the Bible. And the evidence shows us that evolution occurred. The only rational thing to conclude is that the creation account in Genesis is either in error or is not intended as literal history.

As for the arguments of creationists and intelligent design theorists, though they may sound impressive to the scientifically untrained, if the scientific community ain't buyin' it, I ain't buyin' it. And I'll renounce evolution in a heartbeat - when the proper authorities do so first.

[axeplayer]

This sort of language is either from our perspective or it is metaphorical. In the case of the bridegroom passage, the writer is clearly using simile, why not metaphor also?

Earlier readers of the bible (like Galileo's inquisitors) misinterpreted the language of the Bible.

Joshua 10:12 and 13 "On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord int the presence of Israel: O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon,over the4 Valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies."

And what is that a metaphor for?

What happened which made the writer think, a good way to describe that in a metaphor would be to say that the sun stood still?

i believe Mr. Green stated that many of the verses are metaphorical. not all of them. As for this particular verse, the sun standing still wasn't permanent. It was simply so that Joshua would have more time to defeat the Amorites and wouldn't have to fight into the night. The moon was over the Valley of Aijalon, which was where the Amorites were camped, giving darkness throughout the camp.

[juliod]

As for this particular verse, the sun standing still wasn't permanent. It was simply so that Joshua would have more time to defeat the Amorites and wouldn't have to fight into the night. The moon was over the Valley of Aijalon, which was where the Amorites were camped, giving darkness throughout the camp.

So? These verses were used to prove the fact that the earth is the center of the universe, and doesn't move.

It's a clue that the bible is not to be relied upon when it conflicts with the conclusions of ordinary human scholarship.

Right?

DanZ

[Jose]

this is a bit late, since I've been on the road, but ...

Scientists are not perfectly objective and unbiased. They are influenced by the need for research funding, the need to publish, and the need for peer acceptance. This can and often does color their interpretation of the facts. At the very least, their interpretation is colored by the paradigm from which they operate.

This is one of the important concepts that is being put into state and national science standards--to be sure that students realize that scientists are strongly influenced by their cultures and by "scientific tradition." It is both useful and horrid. It is useful in that it helps ensure that everyone knows a common background, so that conversation is easier. It is horrid for the very reasons you raise: it can lock in ideas that have inadequate support.

So here's the problem. Could it be possible that the entire scientific community might be mis-interpreting the facts? Of course.

Of course. On the other hand, there's one heck of a lot of 'em, and a lot of competition between them. Just as Margulis is trying to establish a new idea, so are others trying to figure out whether her idea has any validity. She has a few points, but she also has some serious hurdles before she will have adequate support for her hypothesis. In the end, my prediction is that she'll be right about some things, and wrong about others. The current controversy will serve to help us see possibilities we didn't see before.

I look at it from the viewpoint of a geneticist/developmental biologist/molecular biologist. I know mutations "accumulate" because I've made strains of yeast or Drosophila in which I've caused this to happen. I've looked at DNA sequences, and used evolutionary conservation to identify the "important" parts of genes and gene-control sequences. Important sequences, when mutated, often lead to lethality, or to poor competition in the world of natural selection. Unimportant sequences rarely have such consequences.

We know that offspring inherit their genes from their parents (according to their kind), and we know that mutations happen. We know that some mutations alter developmental processes, producing an individual with altered morphology. We know that selection works. Not only do we know these things, but even YECs accept them, and accept microevolution--even to the extent of speciation and formation of new genera. The current notion seems to be that "macroevolution" is "forbidden" at the level of creation of new families. This seems to me to be a pretty trivial distinction--once speciation occurs, the two species will gradually become more different as time proceeds, via microevolution. They will give rise to new species by speciation, and more differences will accumulate via microevolution. It's just semantics where we draw the line between "genus" and "family."

It seems to me that it's pretty unlikely that all scientists have it wrong on this one. We've had 150 years of people trying to disprove evolution--and each investigation into each presumed disproof has done more to strengthen the theory than to dislodge it.

Still, there may be data that will support creation, if it is ever found. For some reason, the creationists don't seem eager to find it. Instead, they hold up individual bits of information (like polonium haloes) and say "this proves the earth is young, so evolution is disproven." Unfortunately, the rest of the data disprove their disproof--and since they have not offered data in support of their model, we have nowhere to go except back to the current best-supported theory, evolution.

It is difficult, this idea of trusting the scientific community, because our lives are so dependent on it in many ways, and we need to "trust" because science has gotten to the point where only specialists fully understand their respective fields.

I think there is more to it than this (even), especially in the US. We seem to have developed a very strong anti-science sentiment. This has shown up in the last presidential election, among other things, in which we elected the most anti-science president in generations. It also shows up in the fantastic popularity of nutritional supplements and "alternative medicine." I'm not entirely sure why this is, but I suspect it comes from the same root as anti-evolutionism: lack of understanding of what science is, and what constitutes a scientific conclusion. The general public rarely hears of the data, but instead gets a sanitized view of the conclusions. Usually, this is from the media. Often, the media present it very well, but other times, the reports are a bit off.

The trouble comes when science intersects public policy. We want Answers. We want to establish policy Now. So, we put out dietary guidelines, or medical treatments based on what we know at the time--and the public interprets this as Fact. Science Knows. Then new data come to light, and we change the dieatary advice, the medical advice, or whatever it may be. Without knowing how science works, and without hearing of the data, the public says, "I guess science lied to us." So, people make up their own ideas, often based on what friends or websites say, rather than what science says. You can find really wacky stuff on the internet, with thousands of proponents, where a simple examination of the data shows it to be wildly wrong--like, you should never use yeast to make bread, because it's toxic.

Much of the US public seems to have chosen not to trust science. Instead, they trust anti-science. They will eat anything if it promises weight loss, even in the face of hard scientific evidence that it may cause death. When the FDA finally banned ephedra, people complained that their Constitutional rights were being taken away. Of course, the relatives of the people who'd died from it felt that FDA should have banned it sooner, not realizing that Congress, in its "Contract with America" a decade ago, made dietary supplements immune to FDA oversight. This is just about as anti-science, anti-public health as I can imagine, yet it is what we've done, and what Americans seem to have voted to continue.

In the face of this, it is easy to see why people would want to choose creation over evolution. It's not science, it's easy to remember, and it promises them a Purpose in life and the potential of eternal bliss. Evolution is just science, and it's really complicated, and to some, it seems to destroy their chances of a Purpose and eternal bliss.

The solution, I think, is to revamp science teaching. Textbook reviews are uniformly awful. The last 5 I checked were pretty much the same: "this is how it works" but not enough data to see why we think that. It's on a par with religious teaching--the authority tells you what to memorize--except with religion, it's packaged in a bunch of great stories.

So...let's all take the parts of science that we know, and ask, "what are the few critical bits that everyone should know?" Then, let's identify the data that support those things. All we need to do is compile our list of these things, work them into lesson plans in which students start with the data and interpret it, and make them available (I have a website for doing this). It would be, perhaps, a bit of a project, but it needs to be done.

[otseng]

I am assuming that the majority of viewers and participants of this forum are not scientists, have little or no formal training in the relevant fields, and therefore cannot speak with authority regarding the scientific evidence for or against evolution. The purpose of this post is to explain why we nonscientists nevertheless ought to accept evolution.

That is a correct assumption of this poster. I have absolutely no formal training in any of the relevent fields on this forum (my formal training is Electrical Engineering). I cannot speak with any authority on any subject, but that does not preclude me from trying to understand the topics at hand (or even to question them).

From a link that QED provided that quotes Stephen Hawking:

... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.

I believe this should be true not only of the unified theory, but any theory. It should be accessible and comprehendible to laymen.

As to trusting the experts, what I am reminded of is The Emperors New Clothes fable. Everyone in the royal court has to say they see the new clothes or else risk losing their position. Sometimes, it takes an innocent child with no authority whatsoever to be in the position to ask the obvious questions to expose the truth.

[Jose]

now a reply to the more recent discussion:

I agree with juliod that the primary data indicate that the bible is man's work. This explains very easily why the scientific history doesn't match current scientific knowledge. However, we can also suggest that the bible is god's word, handed down to one tribe of humanity, and described in terms they would understand. We can't really tell these apart, since if god did it, how can we ever tell?

Either way, as we learn more through science, we find more that conflicts with the bible's descriptions of the physical world. So, I say we should accept these as the phrasing of understanding at the time...but we should keep the essential truths.

What is an essential truth, and how do we ever find out? There are two flavors of such truths (bear in mind that I am making this up as I go along, and offer no credentials by which to be taken seriously by anyone). The first are those that speak of Man's relationship with god. For one who believes in a deity, these are essential truths, and are not undermined by a minor discrepancy between the Genesis story told 2000 years ago and scientific knowledge as we know it now.

The other flavor of essential truth is relationships among humans. Some of these regard interpersonal behavior, and some of these are valid--like not coveting your neighbor's wife, and such. There will also be some of these that, like the historical/scientific aspects, are also shown to be wrong or misguided. I would consider as misguided the exhortations to suppress women. Why should we pretend that women's only purpose is to raise children in our religion, when there are so many whose potential far exceeds this limited role--and there are men who would be far better suited to raising the kids than trying to do work in the community?

I would consider wrong the "essential truth" that homosexuality is a sin. I haven't received universal support for this view (though considerable support exists), but it appears that the science proves the "sin" part to be wrong. It's not a lifestyle choice, any more than it is a lifestyle choice to have blue eyes or 5 toes.

Other "essential truths" regarding human behavior will eventually be affected as neurobiology begins to understand more and more of the chemistry of behavior. Once we know these things, do we say "pfffft!" to science, and go on about our business in a 2000-year old mentality? Or, do we learn to respect people who are different from us, and treat them the way the bible tells us to treat people who are just like us?

If we "trust the experts" on this, we have to blend science with religion. We can't just rely on the fire-and-brimstone self-proclaimed messengers from god, because we have no idea whether they are experts or not. They say they are. Is that enough?

Again, we have to look at the evidence and weigh it. Trust the experts if you know their information is right, and their interpretation makes sense.

[QED]

Jose's last two posts have me nodding in total agreement. The only thing I take issue with is this:

I agree with juliod that the primary data indicate that the bible is man's work. This explains very easily why the scientific history doesn't match current scientific knowledge. However, we can also suggest that the bible is god's word, handed down to one tribe of humanity, and described in terms they would understand. We can't really tell these apart, since if god did it, how can we ever tell?

If god's word was given to our ancestors as is claimed, but was inaccurately transcribed as a result of limited understanding then it is was always bound to cause problems - problems that are entirely understandable and unavoidable, problems that god has made no attempt to correct since. Surely he must have foreseen this? Do we seriously consider that ours and distant future generations are expected to continue to go with these anachronisms for ever more? It makes the test of faith ever more difficult to the point where it seems one day it will inevitably fail altogether.

But my example of the rainbow covenant doesn't even fit this simple error in transcription scenario. It would appear to be a clear case of a report in which god explains to man how he has put a new phenomenon of nature in the sky as a sign from him to us. What else might god have been trying to say that could have been mistaken for this? I don't think it is a trivial matter. Here is an important principle that can be used to demonstrate that some stories contained in the bible are pure myth. The inference then is that people have been inventive to the point of saying god did things which he did not. This again begs the question of why god (if he exists) allows such nonsensical fabrications to augment his message.

[nikolayevich]

Oops, I'm posting this a bit late. Forgive me for simply responding to the first thread question. I've since read the other posts and am intrigued at what others have said... although the original question of authority still remains:

I am assuming that the majority of viewers and participants of this forum are not scientists, have little or no formal training in the relevant fields, and therefore cannot speak with authority regarding the scientific evidence for or against evolution. The purpose of this post is to explain why we nonscientists nevertheless ought to accept evolution.

Wow. An evolutionist admission in support of appeal to authority. Okay, I'll hear it...

First point: Evolution is so well established by science that it is not an open question.

I'll assume the evidence that it is closed is below, before responding.

Evolution is no doubt a controversial issue. This is made clear by the fact that so many people argue about it.

Much like the assassination of JFK, although there is enough doubt that that isn't closed so it may be a poor example.

Now there is no official disagreement or doubt among the proper authorities...

Who are these masked gatekeepers?

...namely scientists, that evolution is true - that all species are related and that life has been evolving on planet Earth for roughly four billion years.

"Namely scientists"... I assume you mean the scientists which believe ToE? Or do you wish to suggest that there are no dissenting scientists? In the first case, the reasoning is circular; in the second you have not discovered the thousands of degree bearing scientists who doubt ToE's ability to explain the diversity of life we see around us.

There are of course many professional scientists who disagree, but that still does not make evolution an open question. Why not? Because their dissent is without sufficient merit to render it official.

Hmm. It's an interesting judgment.

And how can we know that? Because their dissenting views do not appear in mainstream scientific journals.

But their other works do. What you have to understand about this point, is it is used all too often to suggest that creationist scientists are not at the level of other scientists. The problem is, scores of these creationist scientists do publish. They are simply not able to publish anti-evolutionary papers (in most cases). They are certainly capable of dissenting with "authority" having been educated to the same degree as their peers.

Of course it is easy to find scientific cases against evolution in libraries, bookstores, particularly christian bookstores, on the internet, and even on TV and radio. The problem, though, is that any crackpot can present any quack theory through any of these media. But since the science journals are peer-reviewed, it is difficult to publish one's work in them unless it is of high quality and great merit. This is where the "big boys", the top scientists working on the frontier, publish their work and their findings.

Again, many of these scientists publish work in journals, so long as it is not overtly anti-evolution. So they work with the "big boys". We aren't speaking of amateurs.

Thus junk science has no place in the science journals, and that includes creationism and intelligent design.

What I find interesting about statements like these is that science is supposed to be an ongoing investigation and challenges should arise as they may. People should not be so threatened by challenge.

Of course, creationists publish in their own journals, but this only indicates that their work is unworthy of consideration by the professional scientific community.

"Professional scientific community"... Many of them hold positions at reputable universities and research laboratories. It is a completely circular argument to say that creationist scientists are not worthy of publication because other scientists (with similar accreditation) disagree with them. It is a part of the "scientists are what scientists do" argument.

Creationists may even sometimes publish other sorts of work in science journals (work not pertaining to evolution). But I contend that in no reputable journal do there appear any explicitly creationist articles. If I'm wrong, show me.

So far as I know you are correct. The gatekeepers are persistent.

There is therefore no official doubt in the scientific community that evolution is true, and so it is not an open question.

I'm thankful that the scientific community has never been wrong about such major issues. Still, there is doubt in the scientific community.

Second point: It is irrational to reject anything that is established by proper authorities.

Ouch. I don't think even too many evolutionists would agree with you to such an extent. This truly is blind faith. You are teaching people not to be critical and question important things.

This is not an invitation to brainwashing, nor is it an elicit appeal to authority.

How is "it is irrational to reject anything ... by proper authorities" not appealing to authority.

And I am quite rational, indeed obliged, to accept evolution, not because I have studied the evidence, but primarily because I know that evolution is what is accepted by the experts, who have studied the evidence.

Could you defend evolution? Are you really wishing to encourage people to "just believe" evolution but not based on the evidence? You mention the earth going around the sun is something you can just accept because the proper authorities say so, but you don't mention the geocentric system which was held previously, by whom were thought to be the authorities on the matter in the past. People rejected the heliocentric system precisely for the reasons you think we should believe evolution.

From these two points, it follows that any rational thinking, educated adult, living in this day and age, believes evolution.

Both points are appeals to authority. No evidence.

Now for those creationists who would argue that the Bible is a more reliable authority than science, I ask: If it were shown that somewhere in the Bible, there was a passage that clearly and unequivocally taught that the earth is flat, would you believe it and deny all scientific evidence to the contrary? If there were a passage that clearly and unequivocally taught that the moon was made of green cheese, would you believe it and deny all scientific evidence to the contrary? Would it not be far more sensible in these cases to admit that the Bible is in error?

It would. Thankfully it says no unequivocal thing like it.

It makes no sense at all to use the Bible, or any book for that matter, as a standard to judge the evidence. We should use the evidence to judge the Bible.

Please do so. The Bible isn't something beyond reach or scrutiny. Christian scholars generally welcome testing of the Bible.

And the evidence shows us that evolution occurred.

How can we know this if we only trust the authorities, and do not evaluate that evidence for ourselves?

The only rational thing to conclude is that the creation account in Genesis is either in error or is not intended as literal history.

Rationality should not come second-hand, or only via authority.

As for the arguments of creationists and intelligent design theorists, though they may sound impressive to the scientifically untrained

Hold up there... They are convincing for many who hold even multiple PhDs. How do you counter?

...if the scientific community ain't buyin' it, I ain't buyin' it. And I'll renounce evolution in a heartbeat - when the proper authorities do so first.

I think that IMHO what you are convinced of is the authority of the community over what you believe, not evolution. If you know that you can renounce evolution as soon as it is rejected by that authority, you are not thinking the theory through on your own. I would really encourage you to do so. Perhaps by reading some works by those of alternate viewpoints who you can verify to have strong credentials.

[micatala]

I think Jose's two posts in this thread would be good to refer back to. He has already addressed some of the questions, issues, and contentions you have raised.

I will add a couple of other comments.

twrobson wrote:
Creationists may even sometimes publish other sorts of work in science journals (work not pertaining to evolution). But I contend that in no reputable journal do there appear any explicitly creationist articles. If I'm wrong, show me.

Nikolayevich wrote:
So far as I know you are correct. The gatekeepers are persistent.

Why are the gatekeepers persistent? You seem to be implying that it is because of bias on the part of evolutionary biologists that non-evoutionary papers don't get published. I am not sure there is much evidence for this contention. Is it not more likely that such papers, even when written by credentialed authors, are not supported by the evidence or are found to be otherwise faulty in their scientific reasoning? After all, this is the role of the gatekeepers. To see that what is published is scientifically supportable.

Even if there were demonstrable bias, this does not mean that the non-evolutionary papers that are not getting published are being refused publication because of the bias.

twrobson wrote:
...namely scientists, that evolution is true - that all species are related and that life has been evolving on planet Earth for roughly four billion years.

N wrote:
"Namely scientists"... I assume you mean the scientists which believe ToE? Or do you wish to suggest that there are no dissenting scientists? In the first case, the reasoning is circular; in the second you have not discovered the thousands of degree bearing scientists who doubt ToE's ability to explain the diversity of life we see around us.

I am open to seeing the evidence that there are 'thousands of scientists,' as you say. There might be dozens or even hundreds. Even if there were thousands, this is irrelevant. Elsewhere in the post, you argue that we should make our determination based on the evidence, and not authority. Here, you seem to be arguing on the basis of the authority of the dissenting scientists.

I would not say the authority is irrelevant myself. I would say that if the authority is not backed up by evidence, then the authority should not be surprised if he or she is ignored. I have read Duane Gish, Henry Morris, Jonathan Wells, et. al. They have 'credentials' but there arguements have been found woefully lacking by the mainstream scientific community, as well as many lay people (myself included). In my view, the scientific community is justified, and in fact absolutely should be, ignoring the types of arguments made by these folks because they are bad arguments. If the arguments don't hold water, it doesn't matter if the authors are 'at the same level' as those in the scientific community.

twrobson wrote:
And I am quite rational, indeed obliged, to accept evolution, not because I have studied the evidence, but primarily because I know that evolution is what is accepted by the experts, who have studied the evidence.

Could you defend evolution? Are you really wishing to encourage people to "just believe" evolution but not based on the evidence? You mention the earth going around the sun is something you can just accept because the proper authorities say so, but you don't mention the geocentric system which was held previously, by whom were thought to be the authorities on the matter in the past. People rejected the heliocentric system precisely for the reasons you think we should believe evolution.


I think that IMHO what you are convinced of is the authority of the community over what you believe, not evolution. If you know that you can renounce evolution as soon as it is rejected by that authority, you are not thinking the theory through on your own. I would really encourage you to do so. Perhaps by reading some works by those of alternate viewpoints who you can verify to have strong credentials.

You seem to be saying we should not accept evolution on the basis of the overwhelming majority of scientists accepting it. Then you say that we should read the works of the 'dissenting authorities' and use these to counter the conclusions of the first. I'm confused as to whether you think we should distrust all authorities or only some authorities?

The implication of some of your other comments seems to be that we should never trust the authorities unless and until we can examine the evidence ourselves, think through the implications of the evidence, and reach our own conclusion. In other words, become professional scientists in the specialty in question. Are you really saying that education is irrelevant, that we are all equally qualified to make scientific judgments?

Would you have the same level of skepticism regarding other scientific conclusions, other scientific fields, besides evolution? Should we distrust the conclusions of scientistis in quantum mechanics, relativity theory, genetics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. etc. in the same way that you are suggesting we distrust the experts in evolutionary theory? That would be, in my view, truly irrational. A non-expert such as myself has no hope of trying to verify for myself all of the claims made in even one of these areas.

The trust that I have in the scientific authorities is not based on 'blind trust in authority' as you seem to be suggesting is true of tworobson. It is based on the fact that science, in general, has a very good track record. No, it is not perfect, but in general what science tells us has in large part proven to be true, or at least close enough to true to be very useful in making accurate predictions, designing technologies, etc. etc.

Could I defend evolution by 'producing the evidence' and explaining the theory in a sufficiently cogent manner? I certainly could not do the former, except to point to the evidence that has been collected by professional scientists. I have seen enough of this evidence, and thought enough about the explanations provided, that I think that evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of life as we know it. This is partly based on the authority of the experts, but not entirely, and I think the same would be true for tworobson.

The real question is not "should we accept the conclusions of the experts?" THe question is "on what basis and in what circumstances would we reject the conclusions of the experts?"

SHould we reject or at least strongly question mainstream evolutionary thinking on the basis of Gish, Morris, Wells, Behe, and company? Many have, but usually only because they do not want to accept the non-scientific implications that they read into the theory of evolution in the first place. Now, I wouldn't say that a person having such a motivation means we should dismiss their arguments, but I need to hear a lot more than "some scientists disagree with mainstream thinking, therefore there must be a controversy," especially when the arguments of these dissenting scientists are so patently poor, even to a lay person.

[twrobson]

While I appreciate micatala's support in this matter, there are a few other points I need to make to clarify my case.

Since I have studied the creation/evolution controversy for years, I know a little something about the evidence for evolution, and so I personally accept evolution on the basis of the evidence to some extent. My point is that even if I were completely, 100% ignorant of the evidence for evolution, I would still be obliged to accept it, given that I know that it is what is accepted by the proper authorities. And I still maintain that this is not an illicit appeal to authority, despite the fact that nikolayevich and others are having a hard time understanding this.

Nikolayevich asked:

How is "it is irrational to reject anything ... by proper authorities" not appealing to authority.

I'll grant that my argument is technically an appeal to authority, but when I say that it is not an illicit appeal to authority, what I mean is that I am not guilty of committing the logical fallacy which is commonly known as "appeal to authority." If I were to conclude that evolution were true solely on the say-so of some uneducated celebrity, then I would be guilty of committing the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Even if I argued for evolution solely on the basis of its acceptance by one individual biologist, I would still be guilty of commiting this fallacy because, in a case like this, the opinion of any one expert doesn't carry that much weight. However, I'm not doing either of these things. I'm claiming that I, as well as any educated layperson, must accept evolution, if not on the basis of the evidence, then at least on the basis of its acceptance by the entire body of experts as a whole. Call this an appeal to authority if you like, but it is not a fallacy. If it were, then we couldn't trust the experts about anything!

I'm sure we can all agree that it is not a virtue, but a vice, to believe everything you're told. What I'm pointing out is that it is also a vice, of the opposite extreme, to doubt everything you're told. It sounds like a good thing to "question authority," and quite often it is. But I'm saying that it can be carried too far. And those who are sympathetic to creationism are guilty of taking the virtue of questioning authority too far - so far that it is no longer a virtue, but a vice (that is until they start making cases that merit publication in the journals).

Nikolayevich also said

People rejected the heliocentric system precisely for the reasons you think we should believe evolution.

And they were quite rational to do so. Here's another example: Nineteenth century educated laypeople were quite rational, indeed obliged, to accept the truth of Newton's laws of physics (despite being wrong) because they were accepted by the experts (and to some extent because the evidence supported them), and the experts accepted them because that's what the evidence showed. Thus, in the nineteenth century, anyone would have been foolish (despite being right) to deny the truth of Newton's laws, unless he could also make a case, strong enough to rock the scientific community, that the evidence was misleading. And nobody could do this until Einstein came along.

So yes, the experts can be wrong. And it's entirely possible that evolution may one day be abandoned by the proper authorities in light of further evidence. But the evidence in evolution's favor is so strong that the chances of this happening are remote - so remote that at this point it is not even worth considering. (That would be like seriously entertaining the unimaginably remote possibility that the heliocentric theory will one day be abandoned in light of further evidence.) Yet this is exactly what creationists and intelligent design theorists are hoping for and trying to convince us is on the verge of happening. But despite all of their "scientific" claims and arguments, leading scientists as a group, the proper authorities, the experts, are unmoved. And so am I.

[nikolayevich]

I think Jose's two posts in this thread would be good to refer back to. He has already addressed some of the questions, issues, and contentions you have raised.

He's good at that... apologies if I've missed something.

Why are the gatekeepers persistent? You seem to be implying that it is because of bias on the part of evolutionary biologists that non-evoutionary papers don't get published.

I don't think this is always the case. I simply think it must be considered.

Even if there were demonstrable bias, this does not mean that the non-evolutionary papers that are not getting published are being refused publication because of the bias.

You are right. There no doubt are some non-evolutionary papers that are not well presented. After all, scores of even evolutionist papers never make the journals. I do believe however, many who have offered counterpoints or alternatives to evolutionary concepts are still rejected because they are known to come from design theorists or creationists, or, the implications are not acceptable.

I am open to seeing the evidence that there are 'thousands of scientists,' as you say. There might be dozens or even hundreds. Even if there were thousands, this is irrelevant. Elsewhere in the post, you argue that we should make our determination based on the evidence, and not authority.

I was amused at the appeal to authority, since many evolutionists deny that it is done without realizing it must be.

I'm not saying appeals to authority are bad inherently, at all. It is that we should appeal to the scientific community in a manner which we can corroborate things as needed. So authority can be appealed to- and I certainly listen to the scientific community when I can reason that they are correct, or in the case of practical science, when things work (e.g. my toaster works because my bread is toasted, but I don't care how so I don't ask).

Science runs the risk of looking like organized religion if we are only to listen to the "authorities" and not question or test them, except within the context of ToE. As a symptom of this problem, I know of at least one teacher in the US fired by his school when presenting critiques of evolution, even when no design alternative was mentioned. Has Evolution become a sacred cow?

We discussed elsewhere on the forum that numbers of scientists don't matter, but we have to understand why numbers are raised when they are raised. Evolutionists can say, look, we have hundreds of thousands of scientists who believe evolution, in comparison to scientists who deny evolution which are far fewer (see Project Steve as an example). For this purpose it is erred, to show that somehow a number of the scientists who believe in evolution proves evolution, or anything for that matter. We could easily look back a few years to show how different phases engendered scholars [in the majority] who believed things that were completely illogical.

Or, we could look at how, rather than the majority, simply the right scientists were in favor of certain things. Heck, Direct Current narrowly lost to Alternating Current for use in households across America because Thomas Edison preferred DC! It would have required power and distribution stations every few blocks, compared to AC transmission lines which could send signals over hundreds of miles. Nikola Tesla, working with the backing of George Westinghouse eventually had his day, but many other technologies have won out when they really shouldn't have. (Petrol v. Electric is one example)

When I mentioned that there were many scientists who disbelieve in the power of ToE, I did not do it as a popular-so-true argument which is inherently flawed, but rather as a statement to show that the idea that the question of evolution is closed is false.

At best one could say, the majority of scientists believe evolution. One cannot say all scientists, or even all good scientists accept evolution as fact.

Here, you seem to be arguing on the basis of the authority of the dissenting scientists.

I'm not arguing on the authority of detractors. What I am saying is that the scientific community appealed to has detractors within itself, and it can't simply be ignored as has has been the trend.

I would not say the authority is irrelevant myself.

Nor would I. I do not have a problem with appeal to authority so long as it is acknowledged and balanced by evidence and logic. Evolutionists change their views (and for good reasons if they are capable scientists seeking truth) too often for us to be dogmatic about things. Look at human evolution as an example.

I would say that if the authority is not backed up by evidence, then the authority should not be surprised if he or she is ignored. I have read Duane Gish, Henry Morris, Jonathan Wells, et. al. They have 'credentials' but there arguements have been found woefully lacking by the mainstream scientific community, as well as many lay people (myself included).

The problem evolutionists now face is that there are experts in virtually every major area of science who have posed major challenges to very specific areas of evolution which affect the greater theory.

In my view, the scientific community is justified, and in fact absolutely should be, ignoring the types of arguments made by these folks because they are bad arguments. If the arguments don't hold water, it doesn't matter if the authors are 'at the same level' as those in the scientific community.

Isn't it odd that zero weaknesses to ToE hold water according to evolutionists? That these scientists who have been equally educated all don't know what they are talking about, all of the time? The evolutionary community seems to have to overstate its case to maintain its position.