Bill Dog's Journal: my sentiments exactly

From last night's discussion (it was only 2 pages then) on the Evolution article, someone with some refreshing objectivity, IMO, said: "Amazing how similar thinking can also prove just about any other faith based religion in the world. [...] The sooner we realize that faith in evolution is no more scientific than those damn bible thumping fools, then the sooner we can just quit arguing and realize that our way is not the way. [...] I actually realize the things I believe are just that."

As one of "those damn bible thumping fools", I completely agree. Like the existence of God, Evolution (at least macro-) cannot be proven. Therefore those who choose to believe in them, take them on faith. While I believe in my Creator and Savior, I have no delusions that I can prove His existence. If only everyone had no such delusions about their chosen, unprovable beliefs.

Same poster a little later quotes another, who was making a joke, but actually inadvertently made a good point: "It's amazing what you can find if you have a preconception." Quoter said of this: "When you go looking for something, chances are you'll find it. [...] If I may expand, as I seem to have attracted a throng of close minded evolutionists (of which I am, but not quite so close minded) Why does the typical scientist assume they know it all? Why does a scientist in any field think they are right, and that there is no more to know? [...] ...the more you argue the more you turn people off of whatever side you happen to be promoting."

Yup, pretty much.

Another poster expressed his/her concerns thusly: "The point is simply that we have a set of data from which we seek to extract some meaningful insight about the world. Saying a fossil was found that has x, y or z characteristics is fair; arguing, with total certainty (one might be tempted to say arrogance) that it is a 'missing link' or transitional species and absolutely demonstrates evolution is a more of a leap of 'faith.' [...] ...CAN THERE be, an alternate theory, inconsistent with our current view of evolution, that equally explains all the data. I fear that unless we remain open to that possibility, and view tests of evolution as attempts to falsify it (not verify it), it has reached the level of dogma that other posters have mentioned. [...] My 'problem' with evolution is not the theory itself, nor its success or current gaps. My issue is the process; have we placed this particular theory, so symbolic in the great Is There A God debate, on such a pedestal that we have lost/are losing objectivity?"

Same poster in another comment makes an interesting point with his/her Einstein's Watch story, and adds 'but what frightens me even more is that segment of the scientific community that takes that leap from "I think" to "I know."'

I love how...

[G)-(ostly]

You misunderstand basic terminology and use that against other people. Very cute.

A "proof" and a "fact" in the most pedantic sense are merely things that are so unlikely to be incorrect that it's pointless to continue to question them without some new understanding forcing it. Nothing can be known with absolute certainty, but things can be so very likely to be true that there is no practical reason to consider them wrong.

Evolution is a proven fact. There is so little reason to believe that it is incorrect i

Re:I love how...

[Bill Dog]

You misunderstand basic terminology and use that against other people.

If one has any interest whatsoever in being right, one shouldn't jump to conclusions.

1) I understand exactly what you're saying, and furthermore agree. While technically nothing can be known with absolute certainty (except possibly that "I am"), it's simply not productive to go around double-quoting every usage of the word fact to reflect that.

2) Simply disagreeing with someone's usage of terms is not using a misunderstanding against them

Re:I love how...

[G)-(ostly]

Note that "the earth is flat" was at one time a "proven fact", according to your usage of that term.
Ignoring the fact that you're comparing modern scientific processes with the old religious-leaning concept of "natural philosophy", errors of the past (ancient, ANCIENT past) do not imply errors of the present.

Most of us feel much more comfortable referring to something we can reproduce and observe for ourselves as "fact", and less comfortable with things we cannot...
Actually, you should feel perfectly free t