Trusting the experts

[twrobson]

I am assuming that the majority of viewers and participants of this forum are not scientists, have little or no formal training in the relevant fields, and therefore cannot speak with authority regarding the scientific evidence for or against evolution. The purpose of this post is to explain why we nonscientists nevertheless ought to accept evolution.

First point: Evolution is so well established by science that it is not an open question.

Evolution is no doubt a controversial issue. This is made clear by the fact that so many people argue about it. But it is not an open question. An open question is an issue about which there is official disagreement or doubt among the proper authorities. Ask the proper authorities, namely scientists, what caused the extinction of the mammoths. You'll get a range of answers (disease, overhunting by humans, climate change, a combination of any or all of these, etc.). The cause of the mammoths' demise is thus an open question. Ask scientists whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. You'll get a variety of answers (yes, no, maybe so, I don't know, probably so, probably not, etc.). The existence of extraterrestrial intelligence is thus also an open question. Ask the proper authorities, in this case historians, who it was that assassinated Abraham Lincoln. You will get one unequivocal answer - John Wilkes Booth. The identity of Lincoln's assassin is thus not an open question. If you reject the findings of the proper authorities on a matter that is not an open question, you've either got a lot to learn or a lot of explaining to do.

Now there is no official disagreement or doubt among the proper authorities, namely scientists, that evolution is true - that all species are related and that life has been evolving on planet Earth for roughly four billion years. There are of course many professional scientists who disagree, but that still does not make evolution an open question. Why not? Because their dissent is without sufficient merit to render it official. And how can we know that? Because their dissenting views do not appear in mainstream scientific journals. Of course it is easy to find scientific cases against evolution in libraries, bookstores, particularly christian bookstores, on the internet, and even on TV and radio. The problem, though, is that any crackpot can present any quack theory through any of these media. But since the science journals are peer-reviewed, it is difficult to publish one's work in them unless it is of high quality and great merit. This is where the "big boys", the top scientists working on the frontier, publish their work and their findings. Their articles are primarily written by scientists, for scientists, although anyone who is interested can read them. This does not mean that everything in the journals is gospel truth. Writers may deal with open questions, and much research will inevitably become outdated. But everything in the journals, at the time it is published, at least has enough merit to be worthy of consideration. (Once in a great while, a journal may feature a work of poor quality, but this is due to human error and is very rare.) Thus junk science has no place in the science journals, and that includes creationism and intelligent design.

Of course, creationists publish in their own journals, but this only indicates that their work is unworthy of consideration by the professional scientific community. Creationists may even sometimes publish other sorts of work in science journals (work not pertaining to evolution). But I contend that in no reputable journal do there appear any explicitly creationist articles. If I'm wrong, show me. Show me any mainstream science journal (such as Science or Nature) in which there appears an article (the more recent, the better) which clearly argues or implies that evolution never happened. Better yet, show me several such articles. You won't find any. For that matter, show me an article in such a journal arguing that evolution DID happen. You won't find that either. Why? Because evolution is common knowledge among scientists, so there is no need to argue in its favor. You'll find many articles regarding evolution, but they address the details of the process - not whether or not it happened. There is therefore no official doubt in the scientific community that evolution is true, and so it is not an open question.

Second point: It is irrational to reject anything that is established by proper authorities.

This is not an invitation to brainwashing, nor is it an elicit appeal to authority. It is only common sense (for those of us who are not experts) to accept what the proper authorities have concluded. I believe, and am quite justified in believing, that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa, not because I can see it or because I have made observations and performed calculations to reach that conclusion, but because this is what scientists know from the work of people who have. I know that the speed of light is roughly 186,000 miles/sec, not because I personally have measured it, but because I have learned it from reliable authorities, who ultimately learned it from people who have measured it. And I am quite rational, indeed obliged, to accept evolution, not because I have studied the evidence, but primarily because I know that evolution is what is accepted by the experts, who have studied the evidence.

From these two points, it follows that any rational thinking, educated adult, living in this day and age, believes evolution.

Now for those creationists who would argue that the Bible is a more reliable authority than science, I ask: If it were shown that somewhere in the Bible, there was a passage that clearly and unequivocally taught that the earth is flat, would you believe it and deny all scientific evidence to the contrary? If there were a passage that clearly and unequivocally taught that the moon was made of green cheese, would you believe it and deny all scientific evidence to the contrary? Would it not be far more sensible in these cases to admit that the Bible is in error? It makes no sense at all to use the Bible, or any book for that matter, as a standard to judge the evidence. We should use the evidence to judge the Bible. And the evidence shows us that evolution occurred. The only rational thing to conclude is that the creation account in Genesis is either in error or is not intended as literal history.

As for the arguments of creationists and intelligent design theorists, though they may sound impressive to the scientifically untrained, if the scientific community ain't buyin' it, I ain't buyin' it. And I'll renounce evolution in a heartbeat - when the proper authorities do so first.

[micatala]

Good post N. I think I understand your position a little better, but still do have some disagreements.

I think we agree that authorities deserve our attention but not blind acceptance, and that it is possible for reasonable 'lay people' to measure the reliability of particular 'authority figures' or even groups of authorities in a variety of ways.

I would also agree that the scientific establishment is not always correct, and you point out a couple examples of how the majority view has been wrong in the past.

However, with regards to the particulars relating to ToE, I am unconvinced. What I would be looking for is specifics regarding some of your statements.

The problem evolutionists now face is that there are experts in virtually every major area of science who have posed major challenges to very specific areas of evolution which affect the greater theory

What particular areas are we talking about? What are the major challenges? If we are talking about the objections of YEC's like Gish and Morris, I think their challenges are poor and have been well-refuted.

I personally have not read a lot of the more current ID literature, only shorter articles and snippets provided in rebuttals (like "Creationism's Trojan Horse"). I know Behe et al have tried to make a distinction between the old "Payley's watch" analogy and the "new" arguements for design using his idea of irreducible complexity. I have to say, I don't see that their is really much of a distinction. The ID argument seems to me to depend on what we don't currently know, and does not make a compelling argument that it is impossible that we will someday gain this knowledge and be able to show that the 'design' is really a product of natural causes after all. I am open to consideration of the issue and hope to read Behe or perhaps Dembski before too long.

Isn't it odd that zero weaknesses to ToE hold water according to evolutionists? That these scientists who have been equally educated all don't know what they are talking about, all of the time? The evolutionary community seems to have to overstate its case to maintain its position.

I read the 'reaction' of evolutionists differently. They have had to listen to a lot of (IMHO) real garbage like Gish and Morris, they have watched it gain credence among fairly substantial proportions of the public, they have refuted it thoroughly, and yet the creationists refuse to accept that their arguments do not hold water, and continue to make false and unsubstantiated claims, both with respect to the theory of evolution and, in my view, with respect to the charge that 'evolutionists' are somehow covering up or stonewalling alternative views. One cannot blame the evolutionary biologists for being a little frustrated by this point. The ID folks may not be as bad as the previous generation of creationists, but in my view the jury is still out on that.

Just because these claims (of bias, stonewalling etc.) are made repeatedly does not mean that they have any credence. As I said before, the role of the gatekeepers is to be sure that what gets published has scientific credence.

The ID folks have also decided to a large extent to take their case directly to the public, bypassing scientifically rigorous review and, in my view, hoping to win a PR victory among lay people who are inherently not as well informed as the scientists. It has been fairly well-shown that the motivation (and funding) for this effort is not really scientific at all, but is at its base religious. In some cases (eg. Gish and Wells in my view) those presenting alternative viewpoints have been clearly dishonest in presenting their arguments and evidence, and dissimulating with respect to their motivations.

Now, I would not say that just because there may be a religious motivation, we should discount the ID movement. What I would say is that they need to 'produce the goods' and show some actual scientific evidence, and an alternative theory that takes into account all the known evidence. To this point, it seems that they have not even tried (see Trojan Horse for discussion of this). Why should we give them any credence, credentials or not, if they can't or won't do this?

I think it would be interesting to compare what is happening with regards to the ToE with other fields of science. The general comments you make with regards to the capacity for science to be wrong, for scientists to be biased, etc. would apply to ANY field. Why is the ToE being singled out for particular question? Why are accusations of bias and stonewalling be levied against evolutionary biologists and not scientists in other areas? Can anyone demonstrate that the 'gatekeepers' in evolutionary biology are acting in any way differently than those in other areas?

As a symptom of this problem, I know of at least one teacher in the US fired by his school when presenting critiques of evolution, even when no design alternative was mentioned. Has Evolution become a sacred cow?

I'd be interested in learning more about this case.

We discussed elsewhere on the forum that numbers of scientists don't matter, but we have to understand why numbers are raised when they are raised.

I would agree that numbers are not the whole story.

micatala wrote:
In my view, the scientific community is justified, and in fact absolutely should be, ignoring the types of arguments made by these folks because they are bad arguments. If the arguments don't hold water, it doesn't matter if the authors are 'at the same level' as those in the scientific community.

Isn't it odd that zero weaknesses to ToE hold water according to evolutionists? That these scientists who have been equally educated all don't know what they are talking about, all of the time? The evolutionary community seems to have to overstate its case to maintain its position.

(Sorry for the repeat quote

I would not say there are no weaknesses to ToE, and I don't think most evolutionary biologists would say this, if they are honest. I do believe what the predominant view is at this point. That the general aspects of the theory are so well-established by a great preponderence of evidence that it is really unreasonable to think they are false. In these main aspects I would include

1. Evolution has occurred. The diversity of life we see now is not what it was in the past and has changed over time.
2.

[micatala]

Good post N. I think I understand your position a little better, but still do have some disagreements.

I think we agree that authorities deserve our attention but not blind acceptance, and that it is possible for reasonable 'lay people' to measure the reliability of particular 'authority figures' or even groups of authorities in a variety of ways.

I would also agree that the scientific establishment is not always correct, and you point out a couple examples of how the majority view has been wrong in the past.

However, with regards to the particulars relating to ToE, I am unconvinced. What I would be looking for is specifics regarding some of your statements.

The problem evolutionists now face is that there are experts in virtually every major area of science who have posed major challenges to very specific areas of evolution which affect the greater theory

What particular areas are we talking about? What are the major challenges? If we are talking about the objections of YEC's like Gish and Morris, I think their challenges are poor and have been well-refuted.

I personally have not read a lot of the more current ID literature, only shorter articles and snippets provided in rebuttals (like "Creationism's Trojan Horse"). I know Behe et al have tried to make a distinction between the old "Payley's watch" analogy and the "new" arguements for design using his idea of irreducible complexity. I have to say, I don't see that their is really much of a distinction. The ID argument seems to me to depend on what we don't currently know, and does not make a compelling argument that it is impossible that we will someday gain this knowledge and be able to show that the 'design' is really a product of natural causes after all. I am open to consideration of the issue and hope to read Behe or perhaps Dembski before too long.

Isn't it odd that zero weaknesses to ToE hold water according to evolutionists? That these scientists who have been equally educated all don't know what they are talking about, all of the time? The evolutionary community seems to have to overstate its case to maintain its position.

I read the 'reaction' of evolutionists differently. They have had to listen to a lot of (IMHO) real garbage like Gish and Morris, they have watched it gain credence among fairly substantial proportions of the public, they have refuted it thoroughly, and yet the creationists refuse to accept that their arguments do not hold water, and continue to make false and unsubstantiated claims, both with respect to the theory of evolution and, in my view, with respect to the charge that 'evolutionists' are somehow covering up or stonewalling alternative views. One cannot blame the evolutionary biologists for being a little frustrated by this point. The ID folks may not be as bad as the previous generation of creationists, but in my view the jury is still out on that.

Just because these claims (of bias, stonewalling etc.) are made repeatedly does not mean that they have any credence. As I said before, the role of the gatekeepers is to be sure that what gets published has scientific credence.

The ID folks have also decided to a large extent to take their case directly to the public, bypassing scientifically rigorous review and, in my view, hoping to win a PR victory among lay people who are inherently not as well informed as the scientists. It has been fairly well-shown that the motivation (and funding) for this effort is not really scientific at all, but is at its base religious. In some cases (eg. Gish and Wells in my view) those presenting alternative viewpoints have been clearly dishonest in presenting their arguments and evidence, and dissimulating with respect to their motivations.

Now, I would not say that just because there may be a religious motivation, we should discount the ID movement. What I would say is that they need to 'produce the goods' and show some actual scientific evidence, and an alternative theory that takes into account all the known evidence. To this point, it seems that they have not even tried (see Trojan Horse for discussion of this). Why should we give them any credence, credentials or not, if they can't or won't do this?

I think it would be interesting to compare what is happening with regards to the ToE with other fields of science. The general comments you make with regards to the capacity for science to be wrong, for scientists to be biased, etc. would apply to ANY field. Why is the ToE being singled out for particular question? Why are accusations of bias and stonewalling be levied against evolutionary biologists and not scientists in other areas? Can anyone demonstrate that the 'gatekeepers' in evolutionary biology are acting in any way differently than those in other areas?

As a symptom of this problem, I know of at least one teacher in the US fired by his school when presenting critiques of evolution, even when no design alternative was mentioned. Has Evolution become a sacred cow?

I'd be interested in learning more about this case.

We discussed elsewhere on the forum that numbers of scientists don't matter, but we have to understand why numbers are raised when they are raised.

I would agree that numbers are not the whole story.

micatala wrote:
In my view, the scientific community is justified, and in fact absolutely should be, ignoring the types of arguments made by these folks because they are bad arguments. If the arguments don't hold water, it doesn't matter if the authors are 'at the same level' as those in the scientific community.

Isn't it odd that zero weaknesses to ToE hold water according to evolutionists? That these scientists who have been equally educated all don't know what they are talking about, all of the time? The evolutionary community seems to have to overstate its case to maintain its position.

(Sorry for the repeat quote

I would not say there are no minor weaknesses to ToE, and I don't think most evolutionary biologists would say this, if they are honest. I do believe what the predominant view is at this point. That the general aspects of the theory are so well-established by a great preponderence of evidence that it is really unreasonable to think they are false. In these main aspects I would include

1. Evolution has occurred. The diversity of life we see now is not what it was in the past and has changed over time.
2. The earth is sufficiently old enough to have allowed this change to occur by natural processes.
3. Natural selection is the main mechanism by which this happens.
4. Species have evolved into other species over time.

The ID folks reject 3 and 4 at least. Have they really given enough scientific evidence (and not philosophical arguements) for this rejection?

[Jose]

Why are the gatekeepers persistent? You seem to be implying that it is because of bias on the part of evolutionary biologists that non-evoutionary papers don't get published.

I don't think this is always the case. I simply think it must be considered.

You are absolutely right. It must be considered, as must be the possibility that evolutionist papers would be unlikely to be published in a creationist journal. As micatala said, a creationist bias may not be the reason that a paper is not published in a mainstream journal (indeed, most papers are rejected at least once, regardless of their topic).

I do believe however, many who have offered counterpoints or alternatives to evolutionary concepts are still rejected because they are known to come from design theorists or creationists, or, the implications are not acceptable.

I suspect that this happens sometimes, but I would suggest that it is rare. We know that many creationists do real science that does not reflect one way or the other on the question of evolution or creation, and their papers are published. This is the basis of the creationist argument that there are many scientists who are creationists, and is therefore one of the major planks in their argument-from-authority that there are scientists who doubt evolution. We can't have both things be true: that creationists are not allowed to publish at all, and that creationists are real scientists because they publish in mainstream journals.

I'm not saying appeals to authority are bad inherently, at all. ... Science runs the risk of looking like organized religion if we are only to listen to the "authorities" and not question or test them, except within the context of ToE. As a symptom of this problem, I know of at least one teacher in the US fired by his school when presenting critiques of evolution, even when no design alternative was mentioned. Has Evolution become a sacred cow?

No, evolution has not become a sacred cow. What is at issue is the data. If a history teacher were to teach that the holocaust never happened, I would think that firing them would be appropriate. If a math teacher taught that numbers can only ever be positive, I would certainly question their ability to teach well.

I don't raise these obvious comparisons to ridicule the "challenges to evolution." These are much more obvious to everyone. However, at the scientific level the challenges to evolution really are just as wrong. I do not say this because I have been brainwashed by evolutionists (though that could be true, and I'd never know), but because I have evaluated the data personally and reached my own conclusions. What I was "taught" in high school was probably much like what everyone else was "taught" (except it was long ago, so there was less data). On the other hand, I was not taught biblical history as if it were fact--so I had no ingrained history that conflicted with it, and no fear of damnation if I considered the alternatives. Still, I didn't become competent to evaluate the data until many years later.

I am now trying to become competent to evaluate the creationist viewpoint. I haven't gotten very far, because I have great difficulty interpreting the bible. But I can evaluate the "challenges" to evolution, and I find them wanting.

Rather than just state that as an assertion, it might do us good to start a link dedicated to the "challenges to evolution," and present the science for and against the challenge. That way, we won't have to fall back on arguments from authority--and, maybe, we can come up with better ways of addressing evolution in public. A disadvantage may be that people will link to the talk.origins pages that have addressed all of these challenges, when we'd rather have lucid discussion here. That is, evolutionists link to talk.origins, and creationists link to creationist sites--and everyone already knows that these sites are intentionally slanted one way or the other. We need discussions that help all of us figure out what the others are saying and why.

We discussed elsewhere on the forum that numbers of scientists don't matter, but we have to understand why numbers are raised when they are raised. Evolutionists can say, look, we have hundreds of thousands of scientists who believe evolution, in comparison to scientists who deny evolution which are far fewer (see Project Steve as an example)....

This is the exact purpose of Project Steve: to illustrate why lists don't address the issues. Who cares how many Steves think one way or another? What matters is the data. As long as we argue about how many authorities there are on this side or that, we get nowhere. The question isn't how many authorities there are, but the information upon which they base their conclusions. None of these kinds of arguments address this fundamental point.

...For this purpose it is erred, to show that somehow a number of the scientists who believe in evolution proves evolution, or anything for that matter. We could easily look back a few years to show how different phases engendered scholars [in the majority] who believed things that were completely illogical.

Again, very true. This is what makes science, and evolution in particular, different from religion, and creation in particular. Many aspects of scientists' models of the history of life on earth have been strongly believed, only to be shown to be illogical. The old theories are discarded, and new ones proposed. Creationists often seem to sieze upon the discarded ideas and point to them as reasons that evolution is wrong, or reasons that scientists don't believe evolution. The discarded ideas exemplify the progress of science, and in no way alter the potential validity of the current ideas--many of which are certain to be found wanting in the future.

By contrast, creation hasn't changed in millenia. The objections to evolution that have been raised over the years tend to be the same ones, with the same alternate explanation. Religion, and creation, are not allowed to change when the data don't support them. Rather, it is necessary to say that the data are wrong. This is better than the Bush administration's tactic of removing data they don't like from the Official Scientific Reports (as they recently did with the EPA's mercury study), because it at least acknowledges that the data exist. Still, the fundamental tenet is that the bible is right, so the evidence god left in his creation must be wrong.

When I mentioned that there were many scientists who disbelieve in the power of ToE, I did not do it as a popular-so-true argument which is inherently flawed, but rather as a statement to show that the idea that the question of evolution is closed is false.

At best one could say, the majority of scientists believe evolution. One cannot say all scientists, or even all good scientists accept evolution as fact.

I agree that there is great logic in this. I disagree with the conclusion. (Huh?) Let me try to rephrase that so it doesn't sound so wacky. The number of scientists or otherwise who accept or do not accept a particular theory is irrelevant. You have made this point eloquently. The real question is whether the ones who have studied it in depth can provide the data to support their conclusions. The "experts" with the most solid data are the ones we should listen to.

This gets us back to the question of the credentials of the "experts." Are they appropriate to give us confidence that they really understand the issues? It also gets us back to the question of our own responsibility for thinking about it. Is there a disagreement? Does there appear to be a disagreement? If so, we should figure it out for ourselves. For anything we believe fervently, we should be able to support it with evidence. If we can't, then we should be called to task in this kind of forum, and asked to present the evidence. If we can't do so, we should ask whether other members can provide it.

I would not say the authority is irrelevant myself.

Nor would I. I do not have a problem with appeal to authority so long as it is acknowledged and balanced by evidence and logic. Evolutionists change their views (and for good reasons if they are capable scientists seeking truth) too often for us to be dogmatic about things. Look at human evolution as an example.

Human evolution is a good example. The numbers of fossils is few. Each new one has a pretty good likelihood of telling us something we didn't know before. And, unlike the evolution of gastropods, we really care about humans. Also unlike the evolution of gastropods, we're talking about events occurring only in the last few million years--a geological eyeblink. Unlike almost all other fossil series, for this one, we seem to have narrowed down the locale of the speciation events--just one tiny corner of Africa. (I say "seem to" because this tiny corner of Africa is the tiny corner that has a dry enough climate that the fossils don't decompose immediately when they are exposed. Tropical jungle may have had gazillions of our ancestors, but it's hard to find fossils there.)

I would say that if the authority is not backed up by evidence, then the authority should not be surprised if he or she is ignored. I have read Duane Gish, Henry Morris, Jonathan Wells, et. al. They have 'credentials' but their arguements have been found woefully lacking by the mainstream scientific community, as well as many lay people (myself included).

The problem evolutionists now face is that there are experts in virtually every major area of science who have posed major challenges to very specific areas of evolution which affect the greater theory.

Again, we should explore each of these. I agree with micatala, that the challenges are not major, but have merely been presented as if they are. I think that every one of them has been analyzed and shown to be invalid. Some were shown to be invalid decades ago, but each new generation is presented with them as if they are new, unsolved challenges. This is why YEC can post a list of more than 75 "major challenges to evolution." They may have been challenges when they were proposed, but they aren't any more. This is one of the reasons that most scientists don't take them seriously--they know the challenge has been invalidated, so they ignore it as they ignore their own once-favorite ideas that have been invalidated.

In my view, the scientific community is justified, and in fact absolutely should be, ignoring the types of arguments made by these folks because they are bad arguments. If the arguments don't hold water, it doesn't matter if the authors are 'at the same level' as those in the scientific community.

Isn't it odd that zero weaknesses to ToE hold water according to evolutionists? That these scientists who have been equally educated all don't know what they are talking about, all of the time? The evolutionary community seems to have to overstate its case to maintain its position.

I don't think so. It comes across as arrogance and overstatement, but much of that is from a state of exhaustion. We sort of say to ourselves "do we have to discuss this one again? OK, here goes...." If it were another scientist, you'd say "go look it up." You can't say that to someone who doesn't have access to the back issues of the journals.

What puzzles me, among other things, is that so many of the "challenges" have now become some variation of "yeah, that happens, but it's just microevolution and doesn't prove anything." We spent decades trying to demonstrate to creationists that microevolution occurs (because they said it didn't)--and now that we have, it doesn't prove anything! But, it's all part of the game.

So, which of the challenges should we address first?

[micatala]

First off, thanks Jose for the "technical advice" on using URL's and quotes.

As far as which challenges we should address, I am open to suggestions. I think it might be useful to separate challenges to the basic theory
from challenges to abiogenesis (which I think should be separate because it is often brought up as a challenge to evolution when it really isn't). Yet another category might be the philosophical objection to 'scientific naturalism' which is a part of the campaign being made by the Discovery Institute folks.

Perhaps as a separate thread, it might be good to address the biblical justification/motivation for anti-evolutionism. This would be, in a sense, changing the 'experts' we are questioning whether we should trust from the scientific to the religious. In my view, the scientific challenges to evolution will continue to be brought forward as long as the religious motivation is still with us.

[Jose]

I think the religious motivation will always be with us. There seems always to be a subset of just about any human population that clings to tradition. The new-fangled ideas are "just wrong." Religious tradition tends to generate orthodoxy and fundamentalism, which considers any flavor of reform or modernization to be the abandonment of the true faith.

As I see it, all of the challenges to evolution result from religious motivation. The challenges have been phrased to sound scientific, of course, because there is otherwise no way to challenge it. Religion and science are different "ways of knowing" about different aspects of the world, so we can't challenge one with the other. Unfortunately, the scientific-sounding challenges tend to be recycled over and over. ID, after all, is just Paley's argument from the 1800's--an appeal to god for anything that looks complicated.

In any event, there are some threads already here that address abiogenesis, mutation/natural selection, the fossil record, etc. If any of these look like things to reactivate, then choose one or two and see where we go. Or, invent a new one if there's a more interesting challenge you (or anyone else) would like to pursue.