What would it mean to your science beliefs if evolution is false?

[cladking]

Perhaps it's not really fair to compare scientific models to "beliefs" but so many "skeptics" haven't really looked at experiment so to a very real extent many models have far more in common with beliefs than with experiment.

But this is mere semantics and not an attempt to insult anyone, their expertise, or lack of same.

So what if an experiment were performed today that would conclusively show there's no such thing as a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest? Would it shake your "models" in cosmology, the big bang, or your certainty that our ancestors were superstitious bumpkins who wrote superstitious gobbledty gook that had no bearing whatsoever on either reality or history? Would you doubt the intelligence of experts or your own?

It seems odd that with millions of biologists trying to prove Evolution with millions of experiments that they have all been almost wholly unsuccessful for almost two centuries now.

So what if you most cherished belief is shown wrong? Will it make you believe in the Bible and God if the Bible is closer to experiment than the current theory?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I dont have any concerns. Evolution is already proven.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What would it mean if conclusive evidence showed that the world was a disk resting on the backs of four elephants on the back of a turtle?
Not all hypothetical are useful.

 

[F1fan]

Then there would be something very similar to explain what is evident as the evolution of life.

 

[John53]

I'd follow where the evidence leads.

 

[Shaul]

What is “science belief”? Science is rationally assented, not based on non-empirical belief.

 

[Audie]

Perhaps it's not really fair to compare scientific models to "beliefs" but so many "skeptics" haven't really looked at experiment so to a very real extent many models have far more in common with beliefs than with experiment.

But this is mere semantics and not an attempt to insult anyone, their expertise, or lack of same.

So what if an experiment were performed today that would conclusively show there's no such thing as a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest? Would it shake your "models" in cosmology, the big bang, or your certainty that our ancestors were superstitious bumpkins who wrote superstitious gobbledty gook that had no bearing whatsoever on either reality or history? Would you doubt the intelligence of experts or your own?

It seems odd that with millions of biologists trying to prove Evolution with millions of experiments that they have all been almost wholly unsuccessful for almost two centuries now.

So what if you most cherished belief is shown wrong? Will it make you believe in the Bible and God if the Bible is closer to experiment than the current theory?

What if people quit talking nonsense
like "trying to prove science"?

I can tell you what.

We would stop hearing about how
evolution is false, because, nobody has
anything against it except garbage they make up.

 

[Audie]

I dont have any concerns. Evolution is already proven.

In what sense

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't have science beliefs. Not even sure what that is.

Perhaps you mean acceptance of scientific theories. If the theory of evolution were falsified, I would wonder what the best explanation for the evidence would be to replace the theory. It is not like that evidence is going to disappear or be lumped into someone's favorite creation story or some other fantastical position by default.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I dont have any concerns. Evolution is already proven.

Nothing in science is proven, but as a theory, biological evolution is very robust. It would take significant findings to falsify it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nothing in science is proven, but as a theory, biological evolution is very robust. It would take significant findings to falsify it.

Scientific theory is based on already proven facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps it's not really fair to compare scientific models to "beliefs" but so many "skeptics" haven't really looked at experiment so to a very real extent many models have far more in common with beliefs than with experiment.

But this is mere semantics and not an attempt to insult anyone, their expertise, or lack of same.

So what if an experiment were performed today that would conclusively show there's no such thing as a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest? Would it shake your "models" in cosmology, the big bang, or your certainty that our ancestors were superstitious bumpkins who wrote superstitious gobbledty gook that had no bearing whatsoever on either reality or history? Would you doubt the intelligence of experts or your own?

It seems odd that with millions of biologists trying to prove Evolution with millions of experiments that they have all been almost wholly unsuccessful for almost two centuries now.

So what if you most cherished belief is shown wrong? Will it make you believe in the Bible and God if the Bible is closer to experiment than the current theory?

I know this has been explained to you numerous times. By now, I should have something just to cut and paste to address this.

Survival of the fittest is a poor, popular term that does not describe biological fitness and is often mistaken for health, strength and vigor. You do not need an experiment to demonstrate that fitness does not cause speciation. No one in science makes that claim. Fitness does not cause speciation. Fitness describes the success of phenotypical responses to the environment within a population in the form of reproductive success.

What this reveals is yet another person that has a very poor grasp of the science they feel threatened by.

Here is another one that I should have a canned response for. No one in science is trying to prove anything. Proof is not a standard of science.

Science is not a belief system like belief in ancient language, ancient science or Homo omnisciensis is. The latter three are things claimed that have no evidence and no reason to consider. Evolution has evidence and a sound theory to explain observations and experimental results.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientific theory is based on already proven facts.

Established facts. Not proven.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Established facts. Not proven.

No. Proven.

Thats what experimentation is for. Proven results.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. Proven.

Thats what experimentation is for. Proven results.

Experiments produce results that are factual, but facts are not proven. Proven to be what?

 

[MikeF]

Perhaps it's not really fair to compare scientific models to "beliefs" but so many "skeptics" haven't really looked at experiment so to a very real extent many models have far more in common with beliefs than with experiment.

But this is mere semantics and not an attempt to insult anyone, their expertise, or lack of same.

So what if an experiment were performed today that would conclusively show there's no such thing as a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest? Would it shake your "models" in cosmology, the big bang, or your certainty that our ancestors were superstitious bumpkins who wrote superstitious gobbledty gook that had no bearing whatsoever on either reality or history? Would you doubt the intelligence of experts or your own?

It seems odd that with millions of biologists trying to prove Evolution with millions of experiments that they have all been almost wholly unsuccessful for almost two centuries now.

So what if you most cherished belief is shown wrong? Will it make you believe in the Bible and God if the Bible is closer to experiment than the current theory?

In your hypothetical, I'm not sure why you would think new information about biological systems would automatically affect ones confidence in their understanding of theories of cosmological data. The two fields of study build their theories on different data.

Additionally, why would new information about biological systems make one suddenly embrace the Judeo-Christian Bible or believe in a supernatural entity, when there is so much evidence to show them to be invented human constructs?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps it's not really fair to compare scientific models to "beliefs" but so many "skeptics" haven't really looked at experiment so to a very real extent many models have far more in common with beliefs than with experiment.

But this is mere semantics and not an attempt to insult anyone, their expertise, or lack of same.

So what if an experiment were performed today that would conclusively show there's no such thing as a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest? Would it shake your "models" in cosmology, the big bang, or your certainty that our ancestors were superstitious bumpkins who wrote superstitious gobbledty gook that had no bearing whatsoever on either reality or history? Would you doubt the intelligence of experts or your own?

It seems odd that with millions of biologists trying to prove Evolution with millions of experiments that they have all been almost wholly unsuccessful for almost two centuries now.

So what if you most cherished belief is shown wrong? Will it make you believe in the Bible and God if the Bible is closer to experiment than the current theory?

Yes, what does the theory of biological evolution have to do with cosmology or the Big Bang? Why do creationists insist on conflating the theory of evolution with all of science, when it is specifically about changes in living things and not the origin of life or the cosmos?

 

[cladking]

In your hypothetical, I'm not sure why you would think new information about biological systems would automatically affect ones confidence in their understanding of theories of cosmological data. The two fields of study build their theories on different data.

Additionally, why would new information about biological systems make one suddenly embrace the Judeo-Christian Bible or believe in a supernatural entity, when there is so much evidence to show them to be invented human constructs?

Your point is valid and well taken. Obviously little of the data concerning the big bang is applicable to the study of how and why species change.

But just as science has always been wrong in the past and every branch of science shares the exact same metaphysics (even though experiment is not obviously relevant between them), most individuals who call themselves "skeptics" today accept every branch of science and their Peers as infallible. Indeed, expert opinion is now days accepted as being correct by definition; ie- state of the art is determined by experts called "Peers" and it really doesn't matter if experiment is interpreted correctly or has even ever been performed! It doesn't matter if some branch of "science" has ever had an experiment because it is "science" and its Peers are necessarily correct.

It's not so much that I believe most science is wrong (I do) but that most "science" is wrong for the same reasons: Bad definitions, unchecked axioms, reductionism, and the effects of consciousness on experiment.

Obviously vast swathes of science are correct or correct from some perspectives But I'm curious what true believers in science will think when their favorite beliefs are turned on their head. I'm wondering if they will throw out the baby with the bath water or if they'll simply take a more cautious approach to what they choose to believe in the future. I believe it would be particularly hard on some individuals to learn ancient people were more right than they are and the Bible has the concept of change in species that is closer to reality than anything Darwin ever wrote. Will they lose their anchor and run amuk, turn to religion, or pursue the evidence wherever it might lead (even to "religion") .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your point is valid and well taken. Obviously little of the data concerning the big bang is applicable to the study of how and why species change.

But just as science has always been wrong in the past and every branch of science shares the exact same metaphysics (even though experiment is not obviously relevant between them), most individuals who call themselves "skeptics" today accept every branch of science and their Peers as infallible. Indeed, expert opinion is now days accepted as being correct by definition; ie- state of the art is determined by experts called "Peers" and it really doesn't matter if experiment is interpreted correctly or has even ever been performed! It doesn't matter if some branch of "science" has ever had an experiment because it is "science" and its Peers are necessarily correct.

It's not so much that I believe most science is wrong (I do) but that most "science" is wrong for the same reasons: Bad definitions, unchecked axioms, reductionism, and the effects of consciousness on experiment.

Obviously vast swathes of science are correct or correct from some perspectives But I'm curious what true believers in science will think when their favorite beliefs are turned on their head. I'm wondering if they will throw out the baby with the bath water or if they'll simply take a more cautious approach to what they choose to believe in the future. I believe it would be particularly hard on some individuals to learn ancient people were more right than they are and the Bible has the concept of change in species that is closer to reality than anything Darwin ever wrote. Will they lose their anchor and run amuk, turn to religion, or pursue the evidence wherever it might lead (even to "religion") .

No one accepts science as infallible. Where is your evidence for such a claim? This is just your opinion and I suspect I know why you have that opinion.

I have seen the publications of experiments in evolution. I know that many, many posters have provided you with published results or links to published results of experiments regarding evolution.

Do you mean the misuse of terms like "survival of the fittest", consciousness, bottleneck, etc., etc. without bothering to define them or correct them when their use is demonstrated to be erroneous?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your point is valid and well taken. Obviously little of the data concerning the big bang is applicable to the study of how and why species change.

But just as science has always been wrong in the past and every branch of science shares the exact same metaphysics (even though experiment is not obviously relevant between them), most individuals who call themselves "skeptics" today accept every branch of science and their Peers as infallible. Indeed, expert opinion is now days accepted as being correct by definition; ie- state of the art is determined by experts called "Peers" and it really doesn't matter if experiment is interpreted correctly or has even ever been performed! It doesn't matter if some branch of "science" has ever had an experiment because it is "science" and its Peers are necessarily correct.

It's not so much that I believe most science is wrong (I do) but that most "science" is wrong for the same reasons: Bad definitions, unchecked axioms, reductionism, and the effects of consciousness on experiment.

Obviously vast swathes of science are correct or correct from some perspectives But I'm curious what true believers in science will think when their favorite beliefs are turned on their head. I'm wondering if they will throw out the baby with the bath water or if they'll simply take a more cautious approach to what they choose to believe in the future. I believe it would be particularly hard on some individuals to learn ancient people were more right than they are and the Bible has the concept of change in species that is closer to reality than anything Darwin ever wrote. Will they lose their anchor and run amuk, turn to religion, or pursue the evidence wherever it might lead (even to "religion") .

How can science always be wrong and then "vast swathes of science are correct"? Which is it?