Yes, @Mervin_Bitikofer@pevaquark, that sentence was a hasty conflation of consensus and “ideology creep”. But the reality is that science is not immune to ideology, nor is there unanimous consensus in any field beyond the most established concepts.
The current extremes are in the social sciences, where the consensus is rapidly coalescing around progressive social justice ideologies (see “Grievance Studies” for an ongoing expose of the travesty). This is happening in more rigorous fields in academia, where there is increasing pressure against taking positions that are contrary to the agenda.
Saying that one should adopt the scientific “consensus” has relativistic overtones. In any field, there is agreement on the basic theories, but the process of discovery has been pitting conflicting ideas against each other. Some vocal scientists (rather unscientifically) do overreach in their claims about knowing the truth. Now I understand what you are saying about what I would consider thoroughly established facts, but in the long run, promoting a dose of skepticism within the framework of scientific exploration might be better for the “seekers” out there.
Scientists have two mean of communication (being “vocal”). The first is the same as everyone else uses - speeches, online fora, articles in the media, interviews etc. And yes, sometimes scientists overreach in this arena, (like everyone else). But what really counts among actual scientists, is not this so much as the other, “offical” communication channel - papers in the peer reviewed literature. For this channel, overreaching should not be possible. Claims not thoroughly backed by data or citations will not get through peer review (or at least, shouldn’t). It’s from this second, far more reliable communication channel that consensus develops, not from online debates or Youtube videos or Twitter arguments. Sometimes the consensus can change suddenly, as the result of a single publication (Watson and Crick 1953 being a good example). There is no official “consensus monitor”; one sees it, and how it changes, by going to conferences, listening to gossip, or seeing a change in the titles of new papers in the field.
I should say that I am speaking only of the harder sciences, (physics, chemistry, biology, geology) because I dont know if the same process works quite the same way in the social sciences.
As @originmike says, “The words ‘science’ and ‘evolution’ are often used interchangeably”, and you have just confirmed it. This isn’t science, it’s scientism.
Scientific consensus can be wrong. It was with aether, phlogiston, miasmas, and even geocentricism. It was only in my lifetime that the idea of continental drift became accepted. Before that it was considered a crackpot theory.
Science is not dependent on any one theory, no matter how well accepted it is, and the GTOE is one of the most dispensible in all science. While lip service might be paid to it most of biology proceeds as if it is irrelevant, which it is.
So I imagine you must be on a crusade against physics. Physicists cannot tell you anything about 93% of the universe; they just call it dark matter and dark energy. They cannot reconcile the 2 major theories in their field.
So why should you believe all that stuff about random quantum states and space that curves and time that does not flow constantly? Physicists are clearly confused and up against their limits. Just throw it all out and go back to the Bible, which divides the universe into 3 layers (the heavens, on the earth, and under the earth). Much simpler.
I agree they are sometimes used “interchangeably,” but they aren’t synonyms. Science is a hypernym of evolution. Like math and geometry. And no, using hypernyms correctly is not scientism any more than it’s scientism to say “the room is painted a warm color” instead of “the room is painted red.” Scientism has a meaning and it means a belief system where science is the only source of truth and basis of values. So what are you even talking about?
Says the non-biologist… I’ve heard differently from actual scientists
Incorrect. Science accepts the results of testing whether a hypothesis is correct or not. It is the refusal to accept the repeated results of tests over and over and over which is the rejection of science. Evolution is the result of the scientific inquiry into the origin of the species. Creationists simply do not want science to conduct such an inquiry because they want to dictate such things to everyone. This head-in-the-sand willfully ignorant intolerance must be rejected.
Yes the scientific consensus CAN be wrong but this has no bearing whatsoever on the simple fact that evolution is the result of the scientific inquiry into the origin of the species. Go ahead and bank on such a “god of the gaps” argument counting on this vain hope that science is wrong in this case. But lets call this spade a spade, for this is very clearly a rejection of the conclusions of science on this matter. Nor does it change the fact that this conclusion has been confirmed over and over and over by millions of different tests more than any other theory in science.
Incorrect again. The theory of evolution is the foundation of theoretical biology and the technological consequences are legion and a routine part of medical practice including the last time I went to the doctor.
This statement may be generally true, but I think the relevant point to consider is that evolution is one of the most established concepts. It has been fought and tested hard for a century and a half, and all the tests add up to affirmation of the theory. In the modern day we can safely say that there is no longer any worthwhile argument to be made against the ancient age of the earth or common descent—at least, as far as science is concerned. Especially since genetic testing has confirmed the interrelatedness of the tree of life, those who have not deeply studied the data but still insist on ‘questioning’ it do not have any impact on the established scientific consensus.
The reality is that science is far far more immune to ideology than anything in religion including the Bible. Ideology cannot change the results of the written procedures science gives us because they give the same result no matter what you believe. There are no hooks in the mathematics of science for ideology to twist and distort meaning the way there is in the words of the Bible. What ideology affects is how the science is used, whether it be in the media or technology, but that isn’t science. It certainly affects what scientists say in speeches and non-scientific literature, but that isn’t science.
This is why science is an activity that crosses all religious and cultural boundaries as something they can all contribute to and the only exception are the religions which reject the work of science because they insist on dictating their dogma to people contrary to what the evidence has shown.
Did I say that I rejected all of biology just because I didn’t believe one theory? No, of course not. As I said; gross over-reach on your part. That is just trying to set up a straw man that rejecting one theory rejects all of science. So you too are saying that questioning evolution is the same as questioning science.
I think the problem is that the parts of biology that you accept were figured out in the same manner that evolution was, with there being perhaps even more evidence to support the latter.
Part of the problem (I’d say most, actually) with reconciling the Bible with science is understanding not just what the books say and then what they mean, but what they actually are. This has to do when they were written, for what purpose were they written, and who actually wrote them. Until you do a detailed study of those items, you will believe the teachers you have been exposed to as opposed to actual experts and scholars in the various fields of study.
Having done some of that myself, I find your premise needs looking into.
Wait a minute? Am I assuming you can add, OR am I laying down a general principle. The word “you” is used in more than one way, and so using this word doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with you unless you have a big chip on your shoulder.
calling up the definition in google, it’s the second definition I am talking about.
you pronoun
1.
used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
“are you listening?”
2.
used to refer to any person in general.
“after a while, you get used to it”
So you think the stories in the gospels are eyewitness accounts? I know you haven’t been exposed to actual scholars who are using publicly available sources. Don’t get defensive, just do some basic research.
According to modern courtroom standards? No. But it is unreasonable to expect such a thing from a time when nobody employed such standards. So according to the standards of the times? Yes. What is the difference? The gospels were not simply a recalling straight from memory just what they remembered seeing and hearing. They were compositions based on what these persons saw using whatever notes they had available to fill in the details they could not remember. In short they were biographical accounts from people who were eyewitnesses (most likely with considerable help from associates), often with subtle theological agendas. And to be sure we don’t accept such things in a courtroom because people edit their accounts and even their memories will change according to what they choose believe later on.
I certainly have in a publicly accredited seminary. But some of the arguments of these scholars are far from irrefutable. This is not a hard science. Far from it. And frankly some of THEIR premises should be re-examined.