I agree that scientists do not *believe* in, but rather accept evolution. However, I reject the claim there are no evidences of, or testable hypotheses for, religious beliefs. SOME (but not all) religious people "just believe without testing alternative and testable hypotheses." Exercising faith in and acting on a religious principle (pick one) is subjecting it to a test. Consider one's life before application of the treatment as a control. Data are taken by experiencing the effect of the treatment in one's life. Certainly not hard data, but there are academic disciplines not held to hard data either. Why, ecology was once (and is still considered by some to be) a soft science. Once observational and descriptive, we now consider ecology all grown up, with numbers and statistics to manipulate them. Yet we are still grappling with concepts like thresholds of detectability in wildlife ecology. Is religion not afforded type I errors? It is a different paradigm, but cannot, I think, be rejected outright. There *is* quite a body of supporting literature, misinterpreted as it may be. Is the ID argument not logical, *given* that God at least existed at one time? In the extreme interpretation, it is certainly more parsimonious than some of the alternatives. My argument strays from the disproof of evolution by testable hypotheses, and I apologize. However, the scientific evidence for evolution is convincing (I accept it), but is of course not incontrovertible.
----- Original Message ----- From: "James J. Roper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:28 PM Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution >A comment on this question. > > I would draw to our attention that the question "Why do scientists > believe...?" is phrased in the same context as "Why do people believe...in > = > a > god". However, this wording falsely put those two questions into the same > apparent conceptual framework. However, I would say that scientists do > not > "believe" but rather they accept that the evidence for all the testable > hypotheses of origins, adaptations and so on are supported by evolution by > natural selection (with minor quibbles here and there on details). On the > other hand, and contrastingly, religious people really do just "believe" > without testing alternative and testable hypotheses. So, with religion > comes a belief system, with science comes accepting the evidence. Those > ar= > e > both not the same conceptual thing. > > Jim > > On 8/27/07, Christie Klimas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron is a good >> introductory textbook that will explain many of your >> questions about the validity of the theory of >> evolution. It is easy to read and interesting and >> should provide a basis for further exploring any other >> questions you have. >> >> Christie >> Forest Resources and Conservation >> University of Florida >> >> --- Johannes J L Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > "I do not think evolution is supremely important >> > because it is my specialty. On the contrary, it is >> > my specialty because I think it is supremely >> > important." - /George Gaylord Simpson/ >> > >> > JJ Le Roux >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > Department for Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences >> > University of Hawai'i at Manoa >> > Hawai'i >> > tel (808) 956 0781 >> > fax (808) 956 3894 >> > >> > http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/rubinoffd/jaco.htm >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: Robert Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Date: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:06 am >> > Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution >> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> > >> > > The answer is much simpler. The Theory of >> > Evolution explains those >> > > data.No other theory does. Someone wants to >> > propose another theory >> > > to explain >> > > those data, I'd be all ears, but my ears are >> > closed the "theories" >> > > thatare nothing more than criticisms of other >> > theories. >> > > >> > > Rob Hamilton >> > > >> > > "So easy it seemed once found, which yet >> > > unfound most would have thought impossible" >> > > >> > > John Milton >> > > ________________________________________ >> > > >> > > Robert G. Hamilton >> > > Department of Biological Sciences >> > > Mississippi College >> > > P.O. Box 4045 >> > > 200 South Capitol Street >> > > Clinton, MS 39058 >> > > Phone: (601) 925-3872 >> > > FAX (601) 925-3978 >> > > >> > > >>> Russell Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > 8/27/2007 8:09 AM >>> >> > > Carissa: >> > > you've got quite a collection of concerns about >> > evolution here, and >> > > you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all >> > and teach you a >> > > basic >> > > course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one >> > already, then it >> > > would >> > > be possible to start this discussion at some point >> > later than where it >> > > was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced >> > issues now. that's >> > > right, almost every one of your concerns here was >> > familiar to Darwin >> > > and >> > > he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, >> > he didn't ask about >> > > molecular evolution, but replace the molecular >> > terms in your email >> > > with >> > > parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 >> > years ago. ID >> > > arguments are so old hat by now that they're >> > pretty boring. sorry if >> > > that's offensive, I don't mean to be. >> > > >> > > except maybe the origin of life question, which is >> > quite separate from >> > > evolution--evolution being change over >> > generations, evolution doesn't >> > > specifically address origin of life. that's a >> > different issue that's >> > > often conflated with evolution. >> > > >> > > you asked why the scientific community is so >> > convinced of >> > > evolution? >> > > I'd say three main reasons. >> > > >> > > 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, >> > behavioral, >> > > molecular, >> > > and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any >> > basic text book in >> > > evolution and you'll see what I mean. >> > > >> > > 2. it has another characteristic that scientists >> > like: using the >> > > theory >> > > of evolution, we can and do generate testable >> > hypotheses, and by >> > > testing >> > > them, we practice science. in fact, many >> > thousands of tests of >> > > evolution have been performed, and evolution is >> > holding up quite well. >> > > >> > > 3. it is the only game in town. no other theory >> > of "how the >> > > biological >> > > world got to be this way" has evidence supporting >> > it and generates >> > > testable hypotheses. if you or someone else comes >> > up with an >> > > alternative, you can replace the theory of >> > evolution with your own >> > > ideas >> > > when you produce substantial amounts of data and >> > successfully use it >> > > to >> > > generate and test meaningful hypotheses. >> > > >> > > especially given your background and institutional >> > placement, its >> > > surprising that you haven't made better use of the >> > tremendous >> > > resources >> > > at your disposal to educate yourself on the >> > evidence for evolution, >> > > and >> > > at least bring your education up to current >> > issues. I'll bet the >> > > people >> > > in your lab would be glad to hear your thoughts, >> > and if not, you are >> > > surrounded by resources that can answer your >> > question: "why is the >> > > scientific community so convinced of evolution?" >> > > >> > > RBurke >> > > >> > > >>> Carissa Shipman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/26/07 >> > 10:08 PM >>> >> > > I am a biology student at Temple University and I >> > have >> > > conducted an NSF funded systematics project for >> > the order >> > > Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural >> > History. My >> > > question is why is the scientific community so >> > convinced of >> > > evolution? There are very few publications >> > concerning >> > > evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. >> > Most >> > > scientists are baffled at how such molecular >> > systems such >> > > as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step >> > manner. >> > > It looks to me like many of the molecular inter >> > workings all >> > > needed to be there simultaneously for the end >> > product to >> > > function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just >> > as >> > > baffling. How could that have happened in a step >> > by step >> > > fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist >> > has the >> > > answer. So if you can not explain how the most >> > nitty gritty >> > > machines of life "molecules" learned to function >> > in the >> > > intricate ways that they do why are you so certain >> > that >> > > everything evolved? Science is looking at the >> > details. All >> > > science textbooks I have read have relayed very >> > little >> > > evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They >> > just say >> > > it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has >> > published very >> > > few papers concerning molecular evolution it >> > should perish. >> > > Systematics addresses genetic similarities between >> > species, >> > > but it does not address exactly how those genetic >> > > differences and similarities came to be. There >> > maybe fossils >> > > and genes, but you need more than this. I am not >> > convinced >> > > of evolution, but still choose to educate myself >> > in what it >> > > teaches and believes. How do scientists explain >> > how even the >> > > slightest mutation in the human genome is highly >> > detrimental >> > > most of the time? If even the slightest change >> > occurs in our >> > >> =3D=3D=3D message truncated =3D=3D=3D >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________________= > ___________Ready >> for the edge of your seat? >> Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. >> http://tv.yahoo.com/ >> > > > > --=20 > James J. Roper, Ph.D. > Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais > de Vertebrados Terrestres > ------------------------------ > > Caixa Postal 19034 > 81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil > ------------------------------ > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Telefone: 55 41 33857249 > Mobile: 55 41 99870543 > ------------------------------ > > Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/> > Personal Pages <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
