These are pretty funny. On the other hand, I do have to laugh at the similarity between the vehemence with which people who are not scientists and have not studied science since high school (if they were lucky like me and could avoid natural sciences in college by taking programming courses instead :-) defend evolution as an absolute article of faith as compared to teh blank astonishment the same people have at the idea that people would hold creationism as an article of faith. :-)
respect for the scientific process and its resultant theories in explaining what our universe is and how it got to be isn't simply negated just because one stopped studying "science" at some point in life.
at any rate, that's not "faith". that's acceptance.
either you trust the scientific process and accept its conclusions (knowing that they can and often do change in light of new evidence), or you "believe" things based on faith.
the scientific process doesn't ask to be believed. its results over the last 2500+ years since the ionians "invented" it have spoken for themselves.
either a theory/explanation for why something does what it does is right (and a prediction of a future action pans out), or it is wrong and will be corrected.
there's no faith involved.
there's certainly trust, in that we ourselves can't test all of the theories we'd like to, but that's not the same thing.
as i posted elsewhere on the diebold machines, faith is granted, trust is earned.
evolution through the process of natural selection is a theory of science that has held itself up to everything thrown at it without wavering a bit. specific interpretations of specific evidence have been wrong, and scientists both working to support it and to attempt to discredit it, have misinterpreted the fossil record (sometimes intentionally).
but that's what peer review is for, which is another major aspect of the scientific process. if you have a theory for a sub-set of biology, and it seems to overwhelmingly support (or more so, disprove) evolution, you publish. other scientists rip your research methods, your interpretations, your conclusions to shreds, often with a vigorously applied Occams' razor.
yes there are many (on both sides of the non-debate) who don't know what evolution really is other than "man is an ape" and "god never created us" (neither of which are proven at all, though the former can be which is why its a scientific question and not a question of faith).
yes, i would rather they stay out of the debate of evolution vs. creationism in and of itself. HOWEVER, the exception is when one must assert that regardless of what they themselves know, non-scientific "beliefs" should not be in any way introduced into a science class.
i may not no everything, but i know what will be harmful to my child's (and my country's) future if it gets taught in a classroom.
either you trust the scientific process and accept its conclusions (knowing that they can and often do change in light of new evidence), or you "believe" things based on faith.
My point is that many, many people who scream at the idea of evolution haven't the faintest real idea of what went into it or how it has been challenged and changed since it was first devised. It's an article of faith for them just the way creationism is for others; it's received knowledge from One Who Is Wise. The only difference is that in one person's case it's a talking head on a TV show and the other case it's a minister. And it helps to propagate a false dualism, that of Science vs. Faith, the idea that only one or the other can be true.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 24 Nov 2004 10:03 (UTC)no subject
Date: 24 Nov 2004 10:26 (UTC)no subject
Date: 24 Nov 2004 10:27 (UTC)Forwarding to many appropriate parties...
no subject
Date: 24 Nov 2004 11:54 (UTC)no subject
Date: 24 Nov 2004 14:43 (UTC)at any rate, that's not "faith". that's acceptance.
either you trust the scientific process and accept its conclusions (knowing that they can and often do change in light of new evidence), or you "believe" things based on faith.
the scientific process doesn't ask to be believed. its results over the last 2500+ years since the ionians "invented" it have spoken for themselves.
either a theory/explanation for why something does what it does is right (and a prediction of a future action pans out), or it is wrong and will be corrected.
there's no faith involved.
there's certainly trust, in that we ourselves can't test all of the theories we'd like to, but that's not the same thing.
as i posted elsewhere on the diebold machines, faith is granted, trust is earned.
evolution through the process of natural selection is a theory of science that has held itself up to everything thrown at it without wavering a bit. specific interpretations of specific evidence have been wrong, and scientists both working to support it and to attempt to discredit it, have misinterpreted the fossil record (sometimes intentionally).
but that's what peer review is for, which is another major aspect of the scientific process. if you have a theory for a sub-set of biology, and it seems to overwhelmingly support (or more so, disprove) evolution, you publish. other scientists rip your research methods, your interpretations, your conclusions to shreds, often with a vigorously applied Occams' razor.
yes there are many (on both sides of the non-debate) who don't know what evolution really is other than "man is an ape" and "god never created us" (neither of which are proven at all, though the former can be which is why its a scientific question and not a question of faith).
yes, i would rather they stay out of the debate of evolution vs. creationism in and of itself. HOWEVER, the exception is when one must assert that regardless of what they themselves know, non-scientific "beliefs" should not be in any way introduced into a science class.
i may not no everything, but i know what will be harmful to my child's (and my country's) future if it gets taught in a classroom.
no subject
Date: 24 Nov 2004 14:57 (UTC)My point is that many, many people who scream at the idea of evolution haven't the faintest real idea of what went into it or how it has been challenged and changed since it was first devised. It's an article of faith for them just the way creationism is for others; it's received knowledge from One Who Is Wise. The only difference is that in one person's case it's a talking head on a TV show and the other case it's a minister. And it helps to propagate a false dualism, that of Science vs. Faith, the idea that only one or the other can be true.