Now that we’ve had a good bit of discussion related to science in general, and evolution in particular, it might be good to go back to the logical framework on which science is based. Currently, people are drawn not only to evolutionary theory, but to other major scientific topics as well—such as global warming/cooling, energy production, advances in medicine, and effects of nature/nurture on human development, for starters.
When you and your colleagues have disagreements when working on math, how do you handle it? I would assume that you each try to defend your viewpoint through the use of facts and sound logic. Somehow I can’t see a good mathematician saying, “I’m right because you are ignorant.” Or, “I’m right because my prof/colleagues/most mathematicians agree with me” For example, if someone finds fault with the way you did a specific problem, I’d think that you’d respond by rechecking the problem and asking yourself a few questions, such as, “Does each step of my proof follow logically from the other, starting with basic axioms?”, “Did I leave out a step?”, “Did I use the correct figures?”, “The correct constant?”, “The correct formulas?”, “Did he think of something that I missed?”. You might be totally correct, but on the other hand, you might indeed have made a mistake. If you don’t go through the process of thinking through what the other person said, you lose a chance to learn.
The same sorts of questions apply to any area of scientific inquiry, both historical and empirical. Take manmade global warming, supposedly due to CO2 in the atmosphere. One might simply accept that it is occurring and is manmade, because it is “the scientific consensus”. On the other hand, when those who disagree speak up, one might consider their perspectives and be willing to ask questions that might help come closer to the truth. A good scientist would ask questions: What, besides mankind’s actions, are other possible factors in global warming? How much do we know about all these factors? How well have all these factors been accounted for in the models used when studying global warming? Are these models accurate when plugging in known info from past years? Have there been times in the past when global warming occurred in the absence of industrialization? What studies indicate (or do not indicate) global warming? How well do the data in these studies represent the actual temperatures of an area, or of the whole earth? What biases might I have that might affect my interpretation of data? (As a dissenter on manmade global warming, I’d have to ask the same questions. I certainly don’t want to be guilty of accepting a particular idea simply because a certain author/learned figure said so, or just because I want it to be so.) While I’m not an expert in global warming, I can ask questions, evaluate information, and determine how well various studies follow accepted scientific method and whether their conclusions fit with known facts. Actually, one may address any sort of topic in this sort of rational, logical manner, asking questions, building on previous knowledge, and looking for possible blind spots and mistakes. This is what I’ve been trying to do in our discussion of evolution. Keep in mind that I’m not trying to “win” this discussion, but simply to get to the truth. We each have our own ideas about what is true, and in the course of our conversation, I’m expecting that we’ll both benefit by gaining a clearer understanding of the actual truth.
Something is bugging me here. I’m confused. You’d like me to believe that Darwinian evolution is true and science based, yet you’ve given me little in the way of scientific information to support it. You seem to rely heavily on Richard Dawkins’ writings, which often ignore evidence that does not support his claims. You practically tell me that I should believe in Darwinian evolution because the mainstream scientific media assumes it is true—at least that’s the message I got from your words—just how scientific is that? I try to point out some specific scientific shortcomings of Darwinian evolution—the problem of handedness, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), evidence for young earth, evidence against junk DNA, and so on—and you respond, not by presenting a sound logic and scientific evidence to refute what I say, but by evasions—book is too boring, not interested in answering, consensus is on your side, my evidence no good, and so on—very surprising in light of your intelligence and use of logic in your study of math. The articles you’ve sent me give great examples of adaptation, but do not address the important questions I’ve asked. If handedness can’t occur in natural conditions, that is strong evidence against the possibility of Darwinian evolution. If entropy can’t be overcome, Darwinian evolution couldn’t have occurred. If the earth is thousands, or even millions of years old, instead of the billions needed for evolution, evolution couldn’t have occurred. If specified complexity never happens on its own (who or what would do the specifying?) under natural conditions, evolution couldn’t have occurred. If junk DNA doesn’t exist, it couldn’t have been a building block for Darwinian evolution. Are you having trouble finding research to support your viewpoint? (I understand that when you’re not on break, you’re very busy with school stuff, so that you probably don’t have a lot of time to devote to this conversation. On the other hand, lack of time is not a defense for your position.)
Even if it’s theoretically possible for handedness and specified complexity to occur under natural conditions, what would be the chances of that actually happening? From what I’ve read, it would be so infinitesimally small as to be practically impossible. Would you then ask me to believe, “on faith”, that it occurred? On what basis would you ask that? It seems to me that it would take as much faith, if not more, to believe that something occurred in spite of the odds against it and (what I consider to be) much scientific evidence to the contrary, as to believe that a higher intelligence created the universe and everything in it, specifying the design seen throughout nature.
Your belief in Darwinian evolution appears to be very strongly held—on what are you basing that belief? Primarily on Dawkins’ writings? On other sources? Belief in Darwinian evolution has not only scientific aspects, but also philosophical and theological aspects—which of these has played the strongest role in shaping your thinking about Darwinian evolution? How consistent is your belief system across all these aspects—scientific, philosophical, and theological?
I still think we’re looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions, so it would help me a lot if you could articulate the logical/rational basis for why you believe the way you do. Rather than making assumptions, I want to understand your thinking. The more we understand about each other’s thinking, the less likely we are to talk past or misunderstand each other.
Also, Jon says that orbits don't degrade unless there's some drag, and he claims there is none with the earth.Wouldn’t the sun’s gravity tend to pull the earth toward it and thus slow the earth down?
Take care,
Susan
