Next
in thread
Hello all,
Sorry this reply is so
late, better late than never, I guess. I hope the following quotes
are acceptable as they are from evolutionists and tend to shed some
light on the behavior of those in the realm of science.
"You will be greatly
disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too
hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating
some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on
the origin of species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal
it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas."
-Charles Darwin, 1858,
in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of
his Origin of Species. As quoted in "John Lofton's Journal",
The Washington Times, 8 February 1984
"The fact of evolution
is the backbone of biology, and biology is in the peculiar position
of being a science that is founded on an unproved theory-is it then
a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus
exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts
which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present,
has been capable of proof."
L. Harrison Matthews,
FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent
& Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi.
Warm regards to all,
Brady Hess
Todd Duncan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like this to be mostly an open discussion, but in the
interest of
> keeping things somewhat on track (remember this is specifically
a *science*
> discussion list :) and friendly, let me make a couple of comments
to tie
> things back to the original quote and question about how science
affects our
> choices:
>
> - As Brady pointed out, evolution is a part of science that
has had a strong
> influence on how we see ourselves. It is therefore a very good
example of
> how we may live differently because of things we know about
the world
> through science. It's also a good example of how that influence
can go far
> beyond what the theory actually tells us about the world: As
John noted,
> evolution is a summary of some information we have learned
about how the
> world apparently is. It describes and unifies evidence into
some general
> principles; it doesn't specifically encourage any particular
behavior on our
> part. But we know that people do distort information to serve
their own
> purposes (as Kim mentioned) - that's one reason why it's very
important to
> understand the evidence for things and know exactly what a
theory says. It
> seems to me that the best way to defend ourselves against those
who try to
> use science to manipulate us is to have a clear enough understanding
of how
> science works that we can ask critical questions and check
up on things.
>
> - The essential elements of the theory of evolution *are* a
well-established
> part of science, supported by a great deal of experimental
evidence. It is
> as well-established as many other theories in science which
are put to use
> every day to run our computers, send radio signals, power our
lights, etc.
> So for the purposes of our discussions here of what science
says about the
> world we live in, I think our default should be that evolution
is basically
> a correct statement about how the world is, just as our default
is to accept
> other pieces of information from science: the rules of quantum
physics or of
> gravity, or that the earth orbits the sun. This doesn't mean
we can't
> question these things or must accept them blindly. Far from
it, asking how
> we know something, what's the evidence, is very important and
helpful in
> understanding and finding out where we might actually be wrong.
But I'd
> suggest that (on a science discussion list) any time we want
to question a
> well-established part of science, it's best to do it in the
spirit of a
> discussion/debate about the *evidence*. For example, asking,
"What's the
> evidence that the earth is round?" may seem sillly, but
is actually a very
> interesting and valuable question that sheds light on how we
know things.
> (If you were dropped into a society on earth 3,000 years ago,
with the
> knowledge you have now, could you prove to people that the
earth is round?)
> But stating that the earth is flat and operating on that assumption
is not
> very useful in an environment where most people take it for
granted that it
> is round. Similarly, in a science discussion I think it's best
if we either
> take for granted the standard view that evolution is correct,
or else debate
> the *evidence* directly. Otherwise we risk veering away from
science.
>
> In any case all of this certainly illustrates that ideas from
science do
> have a powerful and complex impact on our view of the world.