There's More to Science Than Evolution
scienceblogs.com
scienceblogs.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Certainly thats not true is it? I agree that it doesn't make predictions that we can test like we do in physics (if I drop a ball from this height it will take this long to hit the ground, etc...) but it does make predictions. It predicts how we'll see fossil records change over time, etc...
As far as I know (and I'm not horribly well read on the subject) all of these types of predictions have held up.