I have read several posts, from both sides, talking about "evidence." As if the existence is the end all of the discussion.
When the subject question is literally "how does existance (reality) work", then indeed existance/reality itself has both the first and the last word.
You need to poke reality to gather data about the thing you want to explain.
You then formulate an idea / model based on that data.
You then refer the idea / model back to reality: you test against it, to see if your idea / model continues to hold up with more and newer data.
If those tests don't check out, then your ideas die.
So yes: reality has both the first AND the last word in science.
Illustration. The police are called to a report of a loud argument. When they arrive they find a man, bloody and dead, on the floor, and standing over him is an equally bloody but very much alive man holding a large butcher knife.
The police arrest him, the DA charges him with 2nd degree murder and the case goes to trial.
The prosecutor presents evidence that the defendant did, in fact, kill the victim.
The defense presents evidence that the defendant did not, in fact, kill the victim.
After all the evidence is presented, the trial is not over! The jury must weigh the evidence, as provided by both sides, to make a determination which narrative best explains the evidence.
You're talking about a court case.
It has similarities to how science is done, but that's about it.
This is not a proper analogy for the subject matter.
In the courtcase, is the jury forms a verdict and there is no appeal happening, then it is pretty much case closed and moving on to the next case. And the next case will be about something completely different - a newer case will not build further on previous cases.
In science, no case is EVER closed. In science, a "new case" DOES build on previous cases. If you were wrong in those previous cases, it will get exposed in
follow up cases (not really "new" cases anyway).
As Newton said: "I stood on the shoulders of giants".
By that, he means that his work is just a continuation of those that came before him.
Newton came up with newtonian physics. Then Einstein came along, he stood on the shoulders of Newton. His "follow up case" exposed problems with Newton's case. So Newton's case got corrected / improved by Einstein.
In that sense, science is not like a court case.
In mathematics we have a concept of "proof." It can be conclusively proven that 2 + 2 = 4.
But, unfortunately, in most other things we don't have a "proof" we have only a conclusion based on our understanding of the evidence presented.
Science, in the sense of
building explanatory models of reality (or "Theories"), doesn't deal in proof altogether. Theories are
never considered proven by very definition.
This is not a handicap of science, it is in fact the strength of science. It's what allows for continous improvement of knowledge.
Is some evidence more reliable than other evidence? Is there more than one way to interpret the evidence? Is it possible for two people to examine the same evidence and come to different conclusions?
Yes to all.
The thing is, the conclusion is NEVER the end. Nore is the conclusion EVER accepted at face value. It is tested and re-tested with new data. And further science work will try and build upon those theories. If it's wrong, and a lot of times it likely is, it will be exposed as such sooner or later, because at some specific moment, or with some specific data or in some specific context, the model will simply stop working. It will no longer adequatly / sufficiently explain the data.
To put it simplisticly... if atomic theory was completely incorrect, then nuclear technology would simply not work.
May I suggest that, in this discussion, none of the evidence is likely to be considered incontrovertible by the other side?
May I note that, in my experience, whenever people say that the evidence for evolution is not convincing, that they more then likely simply are completely unaware of what the actual evidence is?
I mean, one has to only go through creationist posts on this site. Literally not a single one of our creationist regulars has a proper understanding of the many many independend lines of evidence. Some, a lot actually, even flat out DENY that certain evidences exist eventhough they are posted in these very threads all the time.
It's actually quite ironic that the people which are so full of anti-evolution nonsense, usually have no problems with other MUCH LESS solid theories.
I mean, the theory they argue against, is actually one the best and most solid theories in all of science at this point.
Let's post what we consider our most telling evidence and see if there may be a different way of looking at that evidence that could cause intelligent, well educated, well meaning men and women to come to a different conclusion than we have come to.
That's an exercise in futily I'm afraid....
Because, the quote Dr Gregory House:
"
You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place..."
FYI, the "someone" here, refers to creationists.
NO creationist has "reasoned" himself to believe into creationism. Creationism is rather a part of their (fundamentalist) theistic beliefs. They believed it
dogmatically coming in.
Their beliefs are not evidence based, they are faith based.
Whatever evidence is given, it doesn't matter. Evidence is not what made them believe what they believe. So evidence is also not what will make them change their minds.
First, they must learn that evidence based beliefs are better then faith based beliefs. Until they realise that, it's an exercise in futility.
