<p>By the "common belief" I'm meant Darwinism.</p>
<p>If not by Darwinism (which is, by the way, not a monolithic theory), then by what?</p>
<p>What does the evidence suggest that is contrary to the current theory?</p>
<p>I never said Darwinism was monolithic, I siad it was common. But at any rate, I believe God created humans without them evolving from one state to another. However, I do believe many animal species use the element of adaptation in their surrounding environments.</p>
<p>Then how do we explain the rather complete and robust fossil evidence that suggests otherwise? How do we respond to the very large amount of evidence that humans have evolved from a common ancestor? How do we explain the continued evolution of the human species?</p>
<p>I never said I knew all the answers. I simply stated what I believe in.</p>
<p>Believing in something that you're not well-versed in is dangerous. It leaves you open to manipulation by demagogues and snake oil peddlers. You should remain skeptical of any argument until you are presented with supporting evidence.</p>
<p>I know some extremely religious people who believe that chimpanzees were a product of God punishing sinners. I got really mad, and my argument in return--which I kind of thought up off the top of my head--to these people was that the brains of chimpanzees, while complex, are not complex enough to have the ambitions, dreams, comprehension, and intricate emotions equivilent to those of humans; therefore, if a God supposedly punished humans by turning them into chimpanzees, the chimpanzees would probably not be smart enough to realize that they were just punished, nor would they feel any serious emotions related to those of humans being seriously punished. </p>
<p>The only way that would be a real punishment would be if a god punished humans by giving them chimpanzee bodies, but keeping the same human brains, and thus keeping the comprehension and complexity of emotions, required to be receptive to the punishment, intact. </p>
<p>And even if the chimpanzees do have more ambitions and emotions than I give them credit for--because they are smart creatures indeed--then they still won't be receptive enough to the punishment to make sense for a god, who can do so many other more efficiently punishing things, to punish humans by turning them into chimpanzees. </p>
<p>So halfway between this argument, one of the extremely religious persons told me to go to hell (which isn't really an insult to me seeing that I don't really believe in one anyway), and the other two said I was a worthless b**** (which I can't be anyway, since I'm a dude.) So I'm guessing I won that "debate." </p>
<p>I just thought that was worth mentioning in case someone else has a problem with these types of people. I may be wrong though, and in that case one can PM me or just reply to my post right here, for I'm always open to new ideas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Believing in something that you're not well-versed in is dangerous. It leaves you open to manipulation by demagogues and snake oil peddlers. You should remain skeptical of any argument until you are presented with supporting evidence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So should five-year-olds not believe in gravity because they don't understand physics? Should we not believe in Fermat's Last Theorem because most of us don't know how Andrew Wiles proved it? Should we "remain skeptical" of our teachers when they tell us that Hitler killed millions of people?</p>
<p>There are certain matters on which we should trust others with more expertise than ourselves -- if only to save time. We don't personally need to go to Germany and see the remnants of gas chambers from 50 years ago in order to believe in the Holocaust. Authority (teachers, researchers, science textbooks, priests of your religion, etc.) should suffice as supporting evidence for those who accept it.</p>
<p>No, authority should NOT suffice. </p>
<p>I believe in the gas chambers in Europe because I've seen photographic evidence and corroborating tales of their existence.</p>
<p>As far as gravity is concerned, five-year-olds will learn about it fairly quickly on their own when they fall out of bed. But a 25-year-old should still be skeptical of both Newtonian and Einsteinian explanations of HOW gravity works. After all, many physicists themselves are, and they're doing their best to poke holes in it every day.</p>
<p>One of the greatest strengths of science is its skepticism and general willingness to avoid the dogmatic notion of "authority." Like I said earlier, plenty of "authorities" believed that proteins, not DNA, were the building block of life-- it took the works of Franklin, Watson, Crick and others to finally dispel that myth. </p>
<p>I'm not suggesting that people throw out their logic. On the contrary. If a reasonable claim comes their way, and everything stacks up, then accept it. But always remain skeptical of the details.</p>
<p>@fizix: I agree with UCLAri, in the fact that one should not lock the door on any matter. You like physics, so here is an example that pertains to it: everyone knows the big bang theory is widely accepted in the scientific community, but do you know now many scientists are beginning to rethink it, specifically the string theorists, and among them is the Einstein of today Edward Witten (who, as a matter of fact, even works at Einstein's old office at Einstein Drive in the scholars' Institution for Advanced Study.) Now even though Big Bang is considered highly accurate by most of the scientific community, if it wasn't for the brave elite who stayed curious with the ideals outlined by UCLAri, then this new emergence of great and mathematically sound work on string theory (which if correct to the full extent will disprove Big Bang) would not exist; that would be a shame.</p>
<p>And UCLAri is correct about gravity, one can accept gravity as a popular theory, but not stay close-minded to other possibilities...after all, gravity is indeed fundamentally flawed, for it does not explain the phenomena in quantum mechanics.</p>
<p>So people should acknowledge things worthy of acknowledgement, but should not be closed to other possibilities. If by "trusting others" you mean acknowledging what they say, then it is fine, but if you mean completely believing in what they say, then I would have to disagree with you. For you can make acknowledgements, but never fully believe unless you understand it firsthand, and even when you do fully believe, always keep your door unlocked to other possibilities that you may have overlooked.</p>
<p>nyjunior,</p>
<p>On the flipside, there are those who are trying to bring down string theory as well! Like Peter Woit. And who knows, he just might do it!</p>
<p>And that's what I love about science.</p>
<p>I think Edward Witten will kick his ass, and need I remind you string theorists are just finishing up the work Einstein left behind. So we've got Einstein on our side, so there!</p>
<p>Of course skepticism can be useful. But not trusting authority on every single issue is impractical and wastes a lot of time that could have been spent pursuing other interests (like playing sports or going to the movies). It's great to be skeptical on string theory if you're a physicist and it's your job to be skeptical for the rest of the population; the others just accept current doctrine and move on.</p>
<p>Not everyone wants to spend ten hours a day building up their physics and math so they can discover for themselves whether string theory is true or not, or take four years of French so they can see whether French really is an easier language to learn than English, or visit Mexico so they can see whether the American standard of living is high compared to its neighbors. Not everyone is a scientist -- at least not on every issue. Those who aren't trust those who are (the authorities) to make decisions for them. Most 25-year-olds have things to do besides wondering whether doctrine is correct or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One of the greatest strengths of science is its skepticism and general willingness to avoid the dogmatic notion of "authority."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you'll notice that most physicists stick to questioning their own subject, and trust the doctors (authorities) on what medicine they should take to get rid of pneumonia. Sometimes it's wise to have more trust in others' deductions than your own (for instance, if you aren't familiar with the subject).</p>
<p>
[quote]
For you can make acknowledgements, but never fully believe unless you understand it firsthand, and even when you do fully believe, always keep your door unlocked to other possibilities that you may have overlooked.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I, along with most people, fully believe that the American Revolution happened, despite never having lived through it. It's possible that all the history books and newspapers are lying to me, but I think I'll just trust the authorities on this one.</p>
<p>Good, with the American Revolution, you have acknowledged its existance, and you have not heard of any contrary argument, so this is the only acknowledgement you have made pertaining to its existance. However, if someone was to come up to you and talk about how the American Revolution was a conspiracy caused by the Freemasons who just wanted to create the New World Order, and that the Statue of Liberty is actually a symbol of the New World Order that was a present from the Freemasons in France (a nation which also had a revolution,) then you should also acknowledge these facts. Sure your textbook gave you different specifics about the war, but now that you have contrary specifics, you should acknowledge, and you should weigh the accuracy of both arguments on a more personal and analytical manner than by just perhaps saying "the textbook tells me this...so it must be right, the conspiracy theory must be wrong." You should research more into the conspiracy theory, undertand it better, and learn both sides of the argument before you make your final judgement of what to incline your belief in. </p>
<p>And please, stop using the word authority, it has the connotations of a source of complete power that determines your ultimate actions and can thus brainwash you or whatnot. Instead, just use the word "sources," or "mainstream sources." Because these sources don't always have to be authoritative, they don't have to be the deciders of truth, many people think that the textbooks are often wrong or at the very least biased.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But you'll notice that most physicists stick to questioning their own subject, and trust the doctors (authorities) on what medicine they should take to get rid of pneumonia. Sometimes it's wise to have more trust in others' deductions than your own (for instance, if you aren't familiar with the subject).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But doctors make mistakes. A patient SHOULD be skeptical of a doctor, and that's why for many important long-term illnesses (like cancers), even physicians recommend getting a second opinion. I've had doctors diagnose me with things that I was unsure of, so I asked for a second opinion and got it. </p>
<p>Just because someone has letters after their name doesn't mean that they're right. It doesn't make them wrong, either. But we should always maintain high levels of skepticism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not everyone wants to spend ten hours a day building up their physics and math so they can discover for themselves whether string theory is true or not, or take four years of French so they can see whether French really is an easier language to learn than English, or visit Mexico so they can see whether the American standard of living is high compared to its neighbors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I'm not saying that you have to do things by yourself. Hell, I believe many things I'm not well-versed in. But I admit that there is a danger to that. I know very little about how cars work, which means that I'm always at the whim of mechanics. You can see how dangerous that can be...</p>
<p>
[quote]
This argument is flawed. For one, it doesn't take into account the fact that "facts" in science change. It was once considered a "fact" that proteins were the building block of cellular life, not DNA. It was once considered a "fact" that the atom was the smallest constituent part of matter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A fact is something that is true...evolution isn't a fact, it's a belief.</p>
<p>LaxAttack09,</p>
<p>A fact isn't something that is "true," per se, but an observation or datum.</p>
<p>To that end, evolution is a fact AND a theory. We have directly observed evolution in many forms. The theory of HOW evolution occurred, however, is flawed and in question. That doesn't refute the FACT of evolution.</p>
<p>I'm not even sure I do believe in evolution... And I'm not a Republican. (Nor am I Democrat either...) I find it funny when people call others who don't believe in evolution narrowminded.</p>
<p>There was evolution. Nothing to 'believe'.</p>
<p>FredFredBurger,</p>
<p>The problem with not "believing" in it is that it's about as logical to not believe in evolution as it is to not believe in viruses or electrons.</p>