Do non-experts really appreciate the work and knowledge of experts?

[Merlin]

Not the one and only, no. That's impossible for anyone, whether the sphere is science or theology or philosophy. But the explanation which is by far the most likely based on logic and evidence? Yes, that can be provided.

Let me give an example,
A bird biologist may know far more than I do about birds.
I will not argue about its physiology, reproductive cycles, body temp. etc.
However, I do believe in something unseen called air.
Further, I believe birds can fly!
Now, the expert may tell me it is a scientific impossibility, because everyone knows there is no such thing as air.

Now, shall I accept that there is no such thing as air and that birds flying is a scientific impossiblility?

I respect the bird expert on the subject of birds, but I disagree on the existance of air.

In a similar way, if there were no such thing as God, then evolution would be a good explanation of how life came about.

I disagre on the beginning idea of no God.

If there is a God, then my belief of His creating life is a valid possibility.

 

[TheInstant]

In a similar way, if there were no such thing as God, then evolution would be a good explanation of how life came about.

I disagre on the beginning idea of no God.

If there is a God, then my belief of His creating life is a valid possibility.

Except that evolution does not rely upon the premise of the non-existence of God.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

In a similar way, if there were no such thing as God, then evolution would be a good explanation of how life came about.

But whether or not God exists doesn't change the fact that life on this planet looks evolved. The issue of God has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

Just to add, this does highlight the problem that people have with evolution. It stems from religious beliefs, not any shortcomings of any scientific theory.

 

[Caphi]

Let me give an example,
A bird biologist may know far more than I do about birds.
I will not argue about its physiology, reproductive cycles, body temp. etc.
However, I do believe in something unseen called air.
Further, I believe birds can fly!
Now, the expert may tell me it is a scientific impossibility, because everyone knows there is no such thing as air.

Now, shall I accept that there is no such thing as air and that birds flying is a scientific impossiblility?

I respect the bird expert on the subject of birds, but I disagree on the existance of air.

In a similar way, if there were no such thing as God, then evolution would be a good explanation of how life came about.

I disagre on the beginning idea of no God.

If there is a God, then my belief of His creating life is a valid possibility.

Let's try this on a different tack.

Suppose you were the expert on birds. You write articles on how the birds use their vaned feathers to create lift, how they have a giant blade-shaped breast-bone because they need a place to anchor the powerful wing muscles, and so on.

One day, a kid comes up to you and asserts that your ideas about how birds fly are too complicated. He believes they fly around through the action of a supremely powerful and completely undetectable being who is holding each bird and moving it wherever it feels it wants the bird.

He further informs you that you can never prove his ideas wrong, therefore he must be right.

Now, how would you go about this?
a) Assert that you ARE right about birds, being the expert and all, but he can't understand it.
b) Admit defeat against such a flimsy argument, completely shooting down any possibility of constructing any viable ornithopter in the future.
c) Admit that yes, there's no way you or anyone else could ever PROVE how birds fly, but you have all of these measurements and computer models that show that your explanation fits the way birds fly perfectly without calling into being any giant undetectable entities and thereby rubbing Ockham's Razor on the wrong side.

 

[Hydra009]

In a similar way, if there were no such thing as God, then evolution would be a good explanation of how life came about.

I disagre on the beginning idea of no God.

If there is a God, then my belief of His creating life is a valid possibility.

So basically, you're admitting that the only reason you don't accept evolution as a good explanation of how life changes is because of your belief in the evolution = atheism fallacy?

 

[Merlin]

But whether or not God exists doesn't change the fact that life on this planet looks evolved. The issue of God has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

Just to add, this does highlight the problem that people have with evolution. It stems from religious beliefs, not any shortcomings of any scientific theory.

The Pentium computer chip looks evolved too.
I can trace its probable source to the bell labs transistor of long ago.
I can see various steps in the evolution and I can see different chip species branches.

I notice how the chip in the Mac and PC are likely evolved from the same ancestor.

Yet I personally believe there was intelligent intervention and the ICs did not come about on there own by natural forces.

 

[Merlin]

So basically, you're admitting that the only reason you don't accept evolution as a good explanation of how life changes is because of your belief in the evolution = atheism fallacy?

I havern't said anything about atheism.
and there are many reasons I choose not to accept the ideas of mankind evolving.

 

[Caphi]

The Pentium computer chip looks evolved too.
I can trace its probable source to the bell labs transistor of long ago.
I can see various steps in the evolution and I can see different chip species branches.

I notice how the chip in the Mac and PC are likely evolved from the same ancestor.

Yet I personally believe there was intelligent intervention and the ICs did not come about on there own by natural forces.

The problem with that analogy is that Darwinian evolution requires a self-reproducing genome with the capacity to mutate in ways that will change the phenotype of the organism to a sufficient degree that the animals reproductive capacity is somehow affected for the better or the worse.

Silicon microchips do not have a genome and they do not self-replicate. Therefore your analogy is invalid.

 

[TheInstant]

The Pentium computer chip looks evolved too.
I can trace its probable source to the bell labs transistor of long ago.
I can see various steps in the evolution and I can see different chip species branches.

I notice how the chip in the Mac and PC are likely evolved from the same ancestor.

Yet I personally believe there was intelligent intervention and the ICs did not come about on there own by natural forces.

This is why, when you made a comment about Mount Rushmore occurring naturally the other day in a different thread, I did not know that you were joking. Your analogy above contains the same flaw of comparing something designed by humans to biological organisms that replicate imperfectly, which just doesn't work.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The Pentium computer chip looks evolved too.
I can trace its probable source to the bell labs transistor of long ago.
I can see various steps in the evolution and I can see different chip species branches.

I notice how the chip in the Mac and PC are likely evolved from the same ancestor.

The analogy fails because:

a) computer chips aren't self-replicating
b) we have first-hand knowledge of them being designed by people

You can't apply the same anology to life because you aren't working with the same criteria as the computer chips.

One of the interesting things that points to life sharing common ancestry is the nested hierarchy of life. Designed objects could very well violate that hierarchy. Yet, nothing like that is seen in nature.

Yet I personally believe there was intelligent intervention and the ICs did not come about on there own by natural forces.

That's fine, but such views are more philosophical than anything. Again, if objects in nature were designed, obvious violations of the hierarchy of life would be possible. But we don't see those anywhere. I wonder why...?

 

[Merlin]

The problem with that analogy is that Darwinian evolution requires a self-reproducing genome with the capacity to mutate in ways that will change the phenotype of the organism to a sufficient degree that the animals reproductive capacity is somehow affected for the better or the worse.

Silicon microchips do not have a genome and they do not self-replicate. Therefore your analogy is invalid.

My analogy is fine.
The discussion was appearance.
How the evidence looks.

 

[Hydra009]

I havern't said anything about atheism.

O RLY?

"I disagre on the beginning idea of no God."

and there are many reasons I choose not to accept the ideas of mankind evolving.

Well, you did say that evolution would be a good explaination if it didn't start with the premise of no God (which, by the way, it doesn't). So from your own admission, that's your only reason.

 

[TheInstant]

I havern't said anything about atheism.

Was this quote:

In a similar way, if there were no such thing as God, then evolution would be a good explanation of how life came about.

I disagre on the beginning idea of no God.

If there is a God, then my belief of His creating life is a valid possibility.

not meant to imply that atheism is somehow related to evolution?

and there are many reasons I choose not to accept the ideas of mankind evolving.

Are any of them based on evidence?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

My analogy is fine.
The discussion was appearance.
How the evidence looks.

And the evidence for life (genetics, fossils, biogeographies, etc) points to evolution, not design. (Or rather, they look designed by evolution.)

 

[Caphi]

My analogy is fine.
The discussion was appearance.
How the evidence looks.

What about how the evidence looks? I could pour a mixture of rust, gravy and water onto my carpet, and to a cursory examination save that of an expert, it would appear to be blood. Yet you would be unable to petition the state to take me to court for a crime. Just because you don't know or can't understand all the evidence doesn't make it invalid.

 

[Merlin]

And the evidence for life (genetics, fossils, biogeographies, etc) points to evolution, not design. (Or rather, they look designed by evolution.)

From your perspective.
I respect that.

 

[Caphi]

From your perspective.
I respect that.

You respect that, hmm?

You type the word on the same keyboard you used to compare people accepting evolution theory to people who deny that birds can fly.

Amazing.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

From your perspective.
I respect that.

It's not my perspective, though. It's the perspective of the experts in the relevant fields. That was the point of my OP. People seem to dismiss expert opinion when they think they know better regardless of whether or not they have any relevant knowledge in the field. And it's not just evolution. It happens in all areas of life.

 

[Merlin]

It's not my perspective, though. It's the perspective of the experts in the relevant fields. That was the point of my OP. People seem to dismiss expert opinion when they think they know better regardless of whether or not they have any relevant knowledge in the field. And it's not just evolution. It happens in all areas of life.

So OK,

you blindly accept the proclamations of anyone who is 'expert'.
I do not.

 

[Edx]

So OK,

you blindly accept the proclamations of anyone who is 'expert'.
I do not.

Thats not what he said at all.