In article ,
John Harshman wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

I answered your question. They see problems with various aspects
of evolution so you can only say it's all nailed down as a statement of
faith. None of which necessarily rules out an Intelligent Designer.

What aspects of evolution did they see problems with, and why does this
require evolution being a statement of faith? Are you saying that
general relativity and quantum mechanics are just faith because they
can't now be reconciled with each other?

Well, maybe you have already seen this, but:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 :-)

I have to say that I am curious about why you are willing to spend
so much time debating with Fletis. Isn't it blazingly obvious that
he is in way, way, way over his head? Seriously, I haven't read
all the posts in this thread, but have you seen *anything* Fletis
has written which would lead you to believe that, if he were to
get up off of his butt and read some of the articles you have
recommended to him, he would be able to understand them?

In a way my question to Fletis really had to do with his credentials.
He demanded yours a while back, and while you eventually coughed
them up (and they are rather impressive!), you were a bit dismissive
of the whole credentials thing, arguing that people should evaluate
the evidence for themselves. I have to disagree. Modern science
is a huge enterprise, and none of us have the time or the ability
to validate it all for ourselves. Most of it we just take on faith.
Not a religious sort of faith, of course, but a very human sort of
faith in the trustworthiness of the scientific community, a community
made up of actual human beings who know each other, and talk to
each other, and even talk to the rest of us sometimes. I took
graduate courses in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics from serious
scientists, so I know what the scientific community looks like from
the inside, and as a result I have faith that scientists in fields
I never studied are likewise on the level, and don't just make
stuff up. Most of what I believe about science I believe not
because I have evaluated the evidence for myself, but because I
see the scientific enterprise as a unified whole, and so I trust
it as a whole.

But really, the idea that a huge intellectual community could be
untrustworthy isn't entirely outlandish. In fact we have a perfect
example in recent history: the International Communist Movement.
It stretched across continents and decades, and it had all the
trappings of science: theories of history and economics, scholarly
journals, deep thinkers, the works. To believers it was a huge,
impressive edifice, to the point where many couldn't even conceive
of it being flawed. And yet it was entirely bogus. So it *can*
happen!

If you think about things in these terms I think it explains a lot
about the Creationists. Although their own religions sects are
really rather minor in world terms, from their own point of view
those sects are vast and imposing, unifying all of history on into
eternity. And since they know so little of the scientific enterprise
it appears rather small to them. So naturally it seems obvious to
them that any conflict between the two must resolve in favor of
their own beliefs. And really, is this way of thinking all *that*
different from yours and mine?

The rock bottom difference of course is that the scientific community
has *earned* our trust, by producing a steady stream of *true*
miracles, like airplanes that really fly, and medicines that really
cure, and so on. Even if I had never studied science and understood
none of it, the fact that science *works* would be enough to convince
me that the scientific enterprise was rooted in something *real*.
Even if I understood none of the logic, I would believe in evolution
because I believed in airplanes. I think this is the way most
people approach the issue (after all, most people aren't scientists),
and I think that's why Creationists are determined -- above all!
-- to misrepresent the *size* of their movement, and make it look
big. Size does matter. I think even many Creationists would lose
heart if they understood how few scientists accept their beliefs!
--
John Brock