Scientific Consensus makes it true! Really?

[Ouroboros]

All he is showing is that the argument and I hear it so often. Science agrees Evol is true therefore it is true. NO consensus doesn't make science truth and never has!

The question is rather, when will YOU pick up a science book and actually read about the evidence yourself to see what they're talking about, instead of sucking up the opinions of other uneducated goofs? Your ranting from a base of other people's incompetence. Get educated first.

 

[Sunstone]

That is absolutely true. I use Aristotle's mechanics as my go to example of how far from science reasoning without empiricism is. That's why consensus is a great guide. But it is of vital important (IMO) to understand why scientific consensus is informative, but also that this doesn't mean we cannot (or should not) assert the following:

I think it's key to keep in mind that verification (or, to be precise, inter-subjective verification) is not the same thing as "consensus". Consensus is a category. There are all kinds of consensuses. For instance, some consensuses are achieved by appeals to authority, or by the bayonet. Verification, at the very most, is something that often leads to consensus. But it is neither the same as consensus, nor the same as mere agreement of opinions.

 

[Ouroboros]

Now here is a list of over 660 scientist over the world in so many fields that disagree with Darwinism.

They disagree with Darwinism? Great! I'm happy they do. You know why? Because Darwinian Evolution is gone! It's gone long time ago. What Evolutionary Theory teaches today is more like Evolution 3.0 or 4.0. It has gone through many major revisions and some things were unknown to Darwin, which makes Darwinism invalid. So they agree with the current science then? Awesome!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

My last question though was, Have you not used or seen it used and probably often, that due to the consensus of the scientific community that indicates one should believe the Theory or Fact however you phrase it Evolution?
If honest you will admit YES.
The whole point was that is not a good nor a scientific argument to be used in this debate period! End of story!

I've have never seen consensus used as an argument in scientific journals. And I have not only read and published numerous articles, I'm an associate editor of such a journal.

However, I belive that presentation must be based on one's audience. It is practically worthless to try and demonstrate the truth of evolution to many on this forum, not due to their intelligence or even lack of education, but their lack of education on this particular subject. Consensus of experts is a perfectly legitimate argument when addressing laypersons. It is not a deep argument, it is not a complicated argument, but it is legitimate.

For instance, I believe that avoiding processed suger will help me control my diabetes. I have only two things to base this on, every doctor I've discussed it with has told me so (consensus), and having followed their advice, my subsequent limited personal observation are consistent with this advice.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

No I have to say I have seen the argument that 'almost all scientists believe it' used before; in discussions (they arent debates) about evolution and the climate much like used to occur when trying to convince people smoking was bad for you.

Really? Please show me a single peer review article where a scientist has attempted to convicne his peers with concensus. Yes, when talking 'down' I can understand that you may have some examples. Show me where any scientist takes this argument seriously enought to use it to an educated person.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Because Darwinian Evolution is gone! It's gone long time ago. What Evolutionary Theory teaches today is more like Evolution 3.0 or 4.0. It has gone through many major revisions and some things were unknown to Darwin, which makes Darwinism invalid. So they agree with the current science then? Awesome!

I would argue that Evolutionary theory remains the same evolutionary theory since Darwin. This is not because I believe your statement about major revisions to be false; quite the contrary. Evolutionary theory today is drastically different since Darwin (who didn't understand inheritance or know of genes). The reason evolutionary theory today is the same theory it was after Darwin (despite the massive changes to what that theory involves) is because that's what theories are: networks of confirmations, results, hypotheses, tests, reviews, critiques, replications, etc. They are frameworks. Evolutionary theory differs (as you say) radically from what Darwin proposed, yet remains evolutionary theory because the countless discoveries and tests that have refined our understanding of evolution have all been undertaken within the theoretical framework of evolution. Alas, education (even at the university level) tends to depict a model of The Scientific Method in which some hypothesis is developed independent of theory, tested independent of theory, and confirmed (or not) independent of theory. This is not how the sciences work. Rather, experiments typically refine, alter, adjust, extend, broaden, etc., some theory. We've been doing this with evolutionary theory for over a century and all the countless experiments in numerous disciplines have continually demonstrated not just that evolution is true, but the nuances, details, mechanisms, processes, interactions with mechanisms and processes, and so forth that evolution is.

So while it is true that evolutionary theory is not the theory of evolution of Darwin in the colloquial sense of theory, evolutionary theory is and has been evolutionary theory since Darwin. That's what makes it so thoroughly confirmed: despite the extension of the model to fields as diverse as evolutionary psychology to astrobiology, we have continually demonstrated more about the ways in which evolution occurs.

One theory, countless ways in which the theory as a framework inform countless research areas.

 

[Ouroboros]

I would argue that Evolutionary theory remains the same evolutionary theory since Darwin.

In general sense, yes, but there are a few things he got wrong and has been changed (or replaced with updates). I can't point to exactly what parts right now, but I remember reading about it in one or the other book. It's not that Evolution is wrong, but just that Darwin didn't get everything exactly right. It's like Newton v Einstein. Overall, it's minor details which doesn't bother me or anyone, but there are plenty of "evolutionists" who don't consider themselves "darwinists". No physicist would call himself a "newtonian" or "einsteinian."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In general sense, yes, but there are a few things he got wrong and has been changed (or replaced with updates).

More than a few! But that's why we tend to separate theory from specific work in the framework that theory constitutes. We need theory not in the 18th century sense in which a single experiment can confirm some hypothesis and make it a theory, but as frameworks which inform the entirety of research. Lot's of hypotheses related to evolutionary have proven to be false, and a plethora of notions Darwin couldn't have dreamt of been justified. That's because we have been able to use evolutionary theory to develop evolutionary theory. If we had to treat every theory as the result of some experiment or set of experiments and they're results, we couldn't have evolution as so much of what we have discovered about evolution (or realized is not true of it) comes from the theoretical framework itself.

So you're absolutely right that evolutionary theory today would be almost unrecognizable to Darwin, but if we use the more technical sense of "theory" (that I wish were actually taught) this would be a given for any theory that persists.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I wonder why people argue mostly against the fossil record but not against genetic testing.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I wonder why people argue mostly against the fossil record but not against genetic testing.

Because genetics is easier to comprehend. Right or wrong, people can't argue something they understand. If they don't understand the fossil record, it's easier for them to imagine that it must be wrong.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Lets see how this argument we hear from evolutionist really stands up!

Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus

1) The argument in the link reduces a mere part of the process of scientific inquiry and method into playground politics. Peer review is not a popularity contest and should not be confused with peer pressure.

2) The confusion - again - over the context of the word "theory" does little to help creationists understand the importance and overwhelming prevalence of Evolutionary Theory. If Gravity was "just a theory", then jump off a roof to see if there's the possibility that one can fly to test and see if it is false.

3) The link, itself, argues against itself by suggesting that Evolutionists use "consensus" to argue dissenters into silence, yet offers the popularity of religious belief as a counter-argument that Evolutionists should consider as evidence against their "theory" (which is just a hunch, anyway). The link can't have it both ways.

4) If one really wants to start thinking outside of the box, take a cursory read through String Theory. Just as a start.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you're absolutely right that evolutionary theory today would be almost unrecognizable to Darwin, but if we use the more technical sense of "theory" (that I wish were actually taught) this would be a given for any theory that persists.

One more thing too, Darwinism and Evolution is pretty much interchangeable in Europe. There's no stigma connected with the term Darwinism over there, while in America, the term has become synonymous with a belief system in the mouths of the fanatics. My impression is that the term refers to an unchangeable belief in the dogmatic and orthodox theory. Other than that, I don't mind whichever term we use. It's more important to understand how science works and the models change with new discoveries, but as you point out, it's not really taught.

 

[Ouroboros]

I wonder why people argue mostly against the fossil record but not against genetic testing.

You mean like using DNA sequencers etc?

I feel that the molecular evidence is even more convincing than the fossil record. But the fossil record today is enormous.

How nice it would be if someone started a web/database service where the complete fossil record was stored, with HD pictures, 3D models, x-rays and such. One place to rule them all!

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You mean like using DNA sequencers etc?

I feel that the molecular evidence is even more convincing than the fossil record. But the fossil record today is enormous.

How nice it would be if someone started a web/database service where the complete fossil record was stored, with HD pictures, 3D models, x-rays and such. One place to rule them all!

Yeah

I mean while I can understand where people are coming from intelligent design they must also admit that genetics goes against your basic literal reading of Genesis.

Genesis 1: Mankind is made in Gods image (DNA sequencing shows that DNA is found in almost all living organisms and not only that it is not different) The gene expressions and nucleotide lengths maybe different but look at humans and chimps...why is our DNA so similar to theirs?

Genesis 2: Goes into detail with the claim man is made from dust (I don't know much about the chemical composition of dirt throughout the world, but I am fairly sure that if you take a sample of dirt you will find that much of what makes up man isn't found in there). In this case everything else was spoken into creation and man was personally made...yet the construct used was the same? DNA, Mitochondria? IDK I think ID doesn't really question what it is going for as well as it should.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah

I mean while I can understand where people are coming from intelligent design they must also admit that genetics goes against your basic literal reading of Genesis.

Genesis 1: Mankind is made in Gods image (DNA sequencing shows that DNA is found in almost all living organisms and not only that it is not different) The gene expressions and nucleotide lengths maybe different but look at humans and chimps...why is our DNA so similar to theirs?

Yup. And why are there so many alleles (variations)? There are some genes that have more than hundred variations, without being harmful. Why? And how? If neutral mutations can't happen, how come they exist?

And if Noah's ark is true and he only took some 10,000 animals representing all "kinds", we must assume that a very high-speed mutation and evolution happened afterwards considering the huge variety. In other words, young earth and ark believers must believe in a form of evolution that has a higher pace than we know of.

Genesis 2: Goes into detail with the claim man is made from dust (I don't know much about the chemical composition of dirt throughout the world, but I am fairly sure that if you take a sample of dirt you will find that much of what makes up man isn't found in there). In this case everything else was spoken into creation and man was personally made...yet the construct used was the same? DNA, Mitochondria? IDK I think ID doesn't really question what it is going for as well as it should.

And there's not just one kind of dirt. I'm pretty certain that if you talk to a geologist for the chemical formula for dirt, you won't get a definite answer.

Besides, we consist of 70% water. The Bible forgot to mention that we're more water than dirt.

Talking about mitochondria. What's up with that? There's a separate DNA system in the cell that really isn't necessary. Well, it's necessary in the sense that it's important, but my understanding is that it wouldn't have to be a separate machinery for that (I could be wrong though, that's just my impression). I'm certain a God of the Universe could've figured out a more direct and simplified approach to solve that. One DNA instead of two. Also, the mitochondria being similar to bacteria and procaryotic organisms. That's a very strange design...

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yup. And why are there so many alleles (variations)? There are some genes that have more than hundred variations, without being harmful. Why? And how? If neutral mutations can't happen, how come they exist?

And if Noah's ark is true and he only took some 10,000 animals representing all "kinds", we must assume that a very high-speed mutation and evolution happened afterwards considering the huge variety. In other words, young earth and ark believers must believe in a form of evolution that has a higher pace than we know of.



And there's not just one kind of dirt. I'm pretty certain that if you talk to a geologist for the chemical formula for dirt, you won't get a definite answer.

Besides, we consist of 70% water. The Bible forgot to mention that we're more water than dirt.

Talking about mitochondria. What's up with that? There's a separate DNA system in the cell that really isn't necessary. Well, it's necessary in the sense that it's important, but my understanding is that it wouldn't have to be a separate machinery for that (I could be wrong though, that's just my impression). I'm certain a God of the Universe could've figured out a more direct and simplified approach to solve that. One DNA instead of two. Also, the mitochondria being similar to bacteria and procaryotic organisms. That's a very strange design...

What's even more interesting is that in humans, we only get Mitochondria from our moms. The mitochondria in sperm is found in the tails. I know of one case of a person who had mitochondria from his dad and he was pretty unhealthy.

 

[averageJOE]

Hey ttechsan, instead of making all these threads trying to argue against evolution why don't you try to go to one of these threads:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/157849-proof-creationism.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...158464-who-what-when-where-why-questions.html
and actually try to make arguments FOR creationism.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Really? Please show me a single peer review article where a scientist has attempted to convicne his peers with concensus. Yes, when talking 'down' I can understand that you may have some examples. Show me where any scientist takes this argument seriously enought to use it to an educated person.

Given the context of the comment I was referring to general speech not to scientific articles.

 

[Ouroboros]

What's even more interesting is that in humans, we only get Mitochondria from our moms. The mitochondria in sperm is found in the tails. I know of one case of a person who had mitochondria from his dad and he was pretty unhealthy.

Oh. See. I can learn something new every day. :bow:

 

[Clarity]

Lets see how this argument we hear from evolutionist really stands up!

Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus

If you believe that "scientific consensus" can exist, I invite you to read the scientific journal of your choice. Agreement only exists in dictatorships where transient opposition is dealt with the old fashioned way.