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.

[Nyril]

Well, as someone that accepts evolution, I disagree somewhat.

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

This is incorrect. Anyone is free to question evolution to any degree they may wish. However, I have a serious problem if you claim to be questioning evolution, and seek only the views of such places as AIG. This is not questioning, but an active refusal to even look at the chance you may be wrong.

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

Evolution is certainly controversial in political terms, but as far as science goes, debate is limited to the mechanisms of it.

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.

I don't see the presence or absence of things appearing in prestiges journals as the final word of anything. This is an argument from authority.

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

In physics 100 years ago, the "authorities" as you call them, declared that new physics majors were wasting their time, as we knew everything there was to know. In the next few years a fair number of things we considered our top theories were destroyed completely and entirely and replaced with relativity.

Again, this falls under the category of honestly challenging evolution, not just wandering around AIG and nodding your head at how wrong and misguided evolution is.

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

I'm sorry, that's what it looked like to me. You should not reject something because someone better known says it is true.

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.

This I can agree with. The more esoteric parts of quantum mechanics would bend the mind of anyone who hasn't studied physics in extreme amounts of detail. To ask that the general public vote or not on if quantum mechanics is true or not, is not within the realm of reason.

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.

Agreed.

[YEC]

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?

One thing you forgot to mention...it doesn't teach the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese.

When it comes to scientific ideas, the bible is most accurate.

[TQWcS]

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.

Who are the proper authorities?

[juliod]

Well, as someone that accepts evolution, I disagree somewhat.

I think you are too critical of the article. Remember that it was written from the perspective of a non-expert.

This is incorrect. Anyone is free to question evolution to any degree they may wish.

Here I think you are confusing the term "not an open question" with "not open to question". Evolution is not an "open question" in science today. Thats not to say that it wouldn't be questioned in the future if new evidence is found.

I don't see the presence or absence of things appearing in prestiges journals as the final word of anything. This is an argument from authority.

That might be a Meta-Argument from Authority, but it is not the same as the Argument from Authority. Remember the context of the lay person. A lay person is not developing a formal argument. Rather, they are trying to decide for themselves what to accept. It is perfectly reasonable to defer to the judgement of the experts on most issues.

This depends on two things: 1) That the lay person has no serious personal interest in whether the theory is true or not, but merely wants to form an opinion on it; and 2) That the lay person is willing to accept changes in expert opinion as they happen.

Our lives would be quite unlivable if we couldn't use the Meta-Argument from Authority. We depend on the opinion of expert communities, from doctors and lawyers to auto mechanics and even beauticians. We usually wish to know only the results of the deliberations of experts, not the fundemental justifications or explanations.

DanZ

[Jose]

In general, I agree with juliod. For those of us who are not experts in a field, it makes sense to listen to what the experts say.

The difficulty with evolution is that there are two kinds of experts. There are scientists, who have developed an understanding of the earth's history by examining the earth, and there are theologians, who have developed their expertise by examination of scripture. I do not mean all theologians, of course, since a great many have accepted evolution, and see no conflict between it and religion. However, the experts of fundamentalism argue that their information differs from science's information. Hence, the obvious question: what's a layperson to do?

Indeed, it depends on your personal stake in the outcome. The creationist camp comes down on the side of denying the data from the earth itself, or at least interpreting the data selectively, because they believe that doing otherwise invites potential disaster--moral decay, loss of salvation, etc. This is a big personal stake in the outcome.

Anyone who is merely interested in understanding the earth's history, and is secure in their theology regardless of the interpretation of the data, does not have this strong incentive to deny evolution. Hence, they are able to listen to the scientific experts and consider what they say.

What is unfortunate is that the teaching of science in the US has gravitated toward the presentation of current understanding as if it is fact, and without the evidence to back it up. Were it done otherwise, then people would generally recognize that evolution is a theory that explains the facts we see when we examine the earth and the things living on it. Even the layperson would be able to look at the basic data and evaluate it--as many do even now. It's a simple matter of looking at the data for evolution, and the data for creation, and evaluating them.

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

In essence, this is so. There is no dispute about whether evolution occurred. The questions are merely of mechanism. I agree that saying it is not "an open question" is different from saying it is "not open to question." We should question everything--and determine our answers based upon the data that are available.

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

I argue that it is not irrational, if there is proper justification for doing so. After all, almost all major scientific breakthroughs were initially contradictory to the established views. They encouraged people to reject that which had been previously established. Unlike creationism, however, they became accepted by virtue of their power in explaining the data, not by legislation forcing that they be taught in school.

[wgreen]

After all, almost all major scientific breakthroughs were initially contradictory to the established views.

Lynn Margulis theorized that cell organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts are the ancestors of originally autonomous organisms that were captured by cells and began symbiotic relationships. When she first came out with her theory, it was "neglected, even derided (Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother, Science, 19 April 1991)." Now her theory is widely accepted.

She also believes (or did in 1991) that neo-Darwinism is not the mechanism of evolution, rather the combination of organisms in symbiotic fashion. This view has not been accepted.

At a scientific meeting, Margulis challenged the biologists in her audience to name "a single, unambiguous example of the creation of a new species by the building up of chance mutations. After a while, a man mentions a type of corn, only to be contradicted by another. " After showing a specific example of her mechanism, she says ""I can give you a dozen of these examples--and you give me a type of corn, maybe. maybe... I have the evidence. So why do you think I'm wrong?"

This is how science works. Old paradigms are replaced by new paradigms, but not always gradually. There are often conflicts, and old views die hard.

I see where the YECs are coming from (having been one, and not ruling it out completely).

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. Quantum mechanics was not born until scientists (like Bohr) radically postulated non-Newtonian mechanisms.

So here's the problem. Could it be possible that the entire scientific community might be mis-interpreting the facts? Of course. As I mentioned in another topic, James Clerk Maxwell once wrote for an encyclopedia that the ether was the best established entity in the universe.

So it is possible, and may be more likely when the theory has implications for the entire worldview of a culture. The theory of evolution, of course, is such a case. It has profound implications, in that it enables one to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist (I don't remember where I got this quote)."

If evolution were abandoned, it would be more difficult not to be a theist (though not impossible, since there were atheists during Biblical times).

I think that this is part of the reason that it might be difficult to fully trust the scientific community. They are humans, subject to biases, etc.

I'm not saying I don't trust them. I am a scientist.

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 cannot solve equations for quantum systems, and so when I here scientists give their interpretations of quantum uncertainty, I am not able to adequately evaluate their position, even when the interpretation may have implications for my worldview and life.

When I read about the geologic column, I cannot investigate all of the fossils and strata around the world that were used in its construction. I must accept it on trust. This is particularly hard for a Christian to do when the information is sometimes presented by scientists who are hostile towards Christianity.

Sincerely,

Bill Green

[juliod]

I agree with juliod.

Words to live by...

The difficulty with evolution is that there are two kinds of experts. There are scientists, who have developed an understanding of the earth's history by examining the earth, and there are theologians, who have developed their expertise by examination of scripture.

This is easily resolved: theology is not a branch of biology. It's interesting to note that theology is a perfectly respectable academic pursuit. They have their own institutes, meetings, and journals. But what you don't see in theology is any serious questioning of evolution.

What is unfortunate is that the teaching of science in the US has gravitated toward the presentation of current understanding as if it is fact, and without the evidence to back it up.

It's this way for most things. People don't want or need an explanation of how a catalytic converter works. They only want to pass the emissions inspection.

In most cases, unless you have a particular curiosity about something, all you want is the expert's conclusion.

I argue that it is not irrational, if there is proper justification for doing so. After all, almost all major scientific breakthroughs were initially contradictory to the established views.

Ah, but this is not something that a lay person participates in.

DanZ

[wgreen]

I suppose it helps us trust the experts when what they tell us "works." As DanZ pointed out, if my catalytic converter works, I trust the experts theories about catalysis and atoms and molecules, though I may not understand.

I can take the "working" as evidence for the "rightness" of the theory. This idea could help in other areas as well. If geologists can use conventional geological theory to predict the locations of oil deposits and it works (I don't actually know how they do this), then I have evidence for the truth of their theory, even though I may not understand the the details. If scientists can design lasers based on quantum theory, then I can have evidence for myself of the truth of quantum theory without actually understanding the theory itself.

Of course, these things would not be proof, only evidence. It is certainly possible that their theories work because they have key components in common with the true theory, though they themselves are false. nevertheless, I gain confidence in the scientific enterprise as I see its practical application.

Bill Green

[micatala]

twrobson wrote:


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?

YEC wrote:
One thing you forgot to mention...it doesn't teach the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese.

No, the Bible does not explicitly say the earth is flat, at least that I am aware of. But it does pretty clearly say that the earth is immovable and that the sun moves. Christians prior to 1600 or so nearly all interpreted the Bible to say so. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and nearly all the early Protestant leaders said the Copernican theory was unscriptural, and the Catholic heirarchy eventually agreed with them.

If so many learned men of the church could be wrong about what the Bible said about the solar system, how can you be so sure that your particulary interpretation of how scripture applies to the development of life is not wrong?

When it comes to scientific ideas, the bible is most accurate.

I doubt you could prove this. This is an old claim and often made, but I have yet to see a credible argument in support of it. The history of the Copernican controversy alone is enough to put the lie to this one, never mind the volumes of evidence against young earth creationism. The Bible is largely, if not entirely, irrelevant to science in my view.