I would say that they are applying science in a consistent, if extraordinarily shortsighted, way. They have extremely direct empirical evidence that cell phones work, because they make calls on them every day. They have not observed any equally direct empirical evidence for the theory of evolution.
Believing that evolution works requires more than trust for the scientific method. It also requires either (A) trust in the scientific community or (B) the willingness and ability to examine and rationally evaluate existing evidence. People can still claim to believe in science without totally lying while having neither (A) nor (B). (A) is low among people with anti-intellectual prejudices, and (B) is very, very difficult.
Trust is spotty, at best. And human lifetime isn't long enough to directly experience evolutionary change on a large scale. Though I wonder what would be said of 1) the dramatic results of animal breeding, especially dogs, and 2) belief in tectonic motion of continents.
While dog breeding has not produced any new species of canine creatures to my knowledge, dramatic change can be wrought within a human lifetime. It seems perfectly feasible for humans to produce new species of animals over several human lifetimes. Is there such a big difference in the perceptions of human directed selection and selection by environmental forces?
I feel I'm getting too specific in my arguments here.
Would you explain your thought behind your statement, "People can still claim to believe in science without totally lying while having neither (A) nor (B)." I'm not sure I understand, unless it reflects claims per field.
But the people in question (by and large) believe in God and various miracles allegedly perpetrated by Him, with no direct empirical evidence save the occasional Jesus-faced grilled cheese sandwich.
Comments 7
Reply
I think they should hand over the keys to their cars as well.
Reply
Believing that evolution works requires more than trust for the scientific method. It also requires either (A) trust in the scientific community or (B) the willingness and ability to examine and rationally evaluate existing evidence. People can still claim to believe in science without totally lying while having neither (A) nor (B). (A) is low among people with anti-intellectual prejudices, and (B) is very, very difficult.
Reply
Trust is spotty, at best. And human lifetime isn't long enough to directly experience evolutionary change on a large scale. Though I wonder what would be said of 1) the dramatic results of animal breeding, especially dogs, and 2) belief in tectonic motion of continents.
While dog breeding has not produced any new species of canine creatures to my knowledge, dramatic change can be wrought within a human lifetime. It seems perfectly feasible for humans to produce new species of animals over several human lifetimes. Is there such a big difference in the perceptions of human directed selection and selection by environmental forces?
I feel I'm getting too specific in my arguments here.
Would you explain your thought behind your statement, "People can still claim to believe in science without totally lying while having neither (A) nor (B)." I'm not sure I understand, unless it reflects claims per field.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment