For the non-scientist who knows virtually nothing about science, is it rational for that person to believe that evolution provides the best explanation for the origin of humans?

BTW - I am pretty much one of those nonscientist people who knows virtually nothing about science.  I have read almost nothing on the subject apart from Origin of the Species, a couple of Dawkins books, along with a few others; but, definitely less than fifteen books in total.  This is obviously not including the books that reference or build upon evolutionary theory in whole or part.

Nah, it's not. At least, they have no right to go around parroting that it is, since they have no clue what they're parroting about.

As f'r me, I'm on the fence in regards to this for that very reason--I'm scientifically clueless.

I take Bdean at his word. If he says he knows virtually nothing about science, then I believe him.

Since Deep Thought is still in HS (I think?), I believe him too when he says he knows little about science and next to nothing about evolution. Some high schools in this country barely mention the word evolution.

OTOH, a rudimentary scientific education which includes perhaps a chapter on evolution should be enough to convince any unbiased mind of the theory's truth (in the scientific sense of the word "truth").

Quote from: Cogito

Since Deep Thought is still in HS (I think?), I believe him too when he says he knows little about science and next to nothing about evolution. Some high schools in this country barely mention the word evolution.

I'm a senior with just over a week to go, so for the moment, yes.

Our education in the matter of evolution was minimal at best. There was no effort to consciously minimize it ('sfar as I know, education doesn't take any religious bents in Jersey--more likely it just has something the do with the fact that my school is crappy and underfunded and suffering from a dearth of actually COMPETANT teachers...), but there was no big emphasis. Granted, I never went out of my way to take more science than the bare required minimum, but I did take Biology, and I'd think there'd be more evolutionism in that class than was taught. (Then again, I think I took the "Regular" class that time rather than "College Prep," so it was bound to be simpler.)

Actually, DT, from talking with my friend (who has a Ph.D. in neuroscience) evolution is very, very seldom taught in any biology class that isn't specifically about it.

"Have you somehow gotten the mistaken idea that there is a significant scientific controversy concerning evolution that doesn't exist for, say, quantum mechanics?"

That's right, DT.   As there is no scientific controversy concerning evolution it is not worth your time or attention.  You're better off just not looking into it further.  Then, in ten years, join Cogito on online forums talking about how evolution is true because there is no scientific controversy concerning it.  Rather than investigating evolution, study logical fallacies.  Because you're going to need them.

Now, my own advice is that you do investigate any and all claims, especially when your tax money is on the line.   QM is definately worth your time, as nuclear technology is going to continue to be an issue, and the philosophical implications behind things like the 'multiverse' could prove to be very important.

Yes, it will take you some time.  Trust me, you'll be glad you did it.

There is no irony there that I can see. The Catholic Church, unlike some conservative Christians in this country, accepts the theory of evolution as being essentially true.

It is somewhat ironic that my strongest evolutionist education came from a theist private school rather than my present and chiefly-secular public school.

How would you know given the scant exposure you've had to classroom instruction on evolution -- and virtually all of that in a Catholic school? Pre-existing bias, maybe?  

I thought we were talking about just the type of evolution education that I've been exposed to--rudimentary, minimal, one-chapter? I actually was indoctrinated into that (adding in the Catholic theist spin on it, of course). Now that I've questioned it (back in my Christian days), I can't honestly come to a conclusion until I've done something somewhat more significant than a rudimentary, one-chapter evolutionism stint.

Now, if we were talking about a whole class and a whole textbook whose prime focus was evolution, then we'd be getting somewhere.

When you get around to educating yourself about science (assuming you do) do you plan to take this approach with every theory of science or only with the theory of evolution?

Every theory, but naturally the ones that are in less dispute will take less time to examine, and naturally my prime focus will be on the big ones that's in the spotlight of religious debate.

If you plan to do so with every theory of science, then you may as well make science your major since most of your time will be tied up with your science studies.

Well, I'm not going to make a point of studying every theory. I'm going to put primarily the ones that are in big dispute, particularly in matters of religious bickering--evolution being the Big Cheese of that debate, don't we all know it--and then, do it please ya, I'll take up investigating others as a sort of hobby, perhaps, but not as a big focus as I'm not personally interested in many of them.

My major will be English, probably, with as much focus on creative writing as possible. Maybe I'll even be able to teach those snobs in the writing seminars a thing or two about what really makes a good book.

If you plan to do so only with regard to evolution then perhaps you should ask yourself, why evolution? Have you somehow gotten the mistaken idea that there is a significant scientific controversy concerning evolution that doesn't exist for, say, quantum mechanics?

Nah, I'm just more interested in the former than in the latter. (I don't even know what the latter IS, to be honest. )

We are.  That's what the science of biology is all about.  Take away evolution, and you can kiss biology goodbye.  Might as well kick geology in the butt, too, while you're at it.  

Not necessarily, Cop.  If evolution were to be disproven, say, tomorrow, most of biology would continue on uninterrupted.  DNA would still be DNA and still function the same way, for example.

Not necessarily, Cop.  If evolution were to be disproven, say, tomorrow, most of biology would continue on uninterrupted.  DNA would still be DNA and still function the same way, for example.

How could evolution be "disproven", Doc?  A better way of looking at science is that competing theories encompass earlier theories in that they account for all (or most) of the data accounted for in the earlier theory PLUS data that could not be accounted for earlier.  Theories don't just get "disproven" out of the blue.  They get superseded.

In any case, DNA is part of the evidence that evolution works as advertised, just as genes and chromosomes are.  One of the reasons why evolution became the bedrock of biology is that subsequent discoveries were entirely consistent with it.  In the case of DNA, we can use it to map relationships between more closely and less closely related organisms.  We can explain evolution in terms of changes that we observe in DNA sequences.

I'm not at all surprised.  Private schools have not suffered from curriculum devolution.  I went to high school back in the 1960's.  That's when they taught science, history, civics, and languages, among other subjects.  Nowadays, they've nerfed the curriculum so badly that it's a miracle anyone learns anything.  I learned all about evolution in biology AND earth science classes.  They even taught sex education, although our teacher sometimes knew less than the students.  

My school still teaches sex ed, and the students STILL know more than the teacher.  

I suppose one could say that all education is indoctrination of one sort or another.  If you're lucky, you learn that science is all about doubting the truth of scientific theories.  Religion is real indoctrination in the sense that people are not taught to question orthodoxy.  A properly taught evolution class ought to include a day or two on creationism and why it isn't a science.  That, of course, would not get past the political correctness cops.

Agreed on every point here, friend, except that I will reserve judgment on the matter of creationism (a true evolution class WOULD have lessons on the opposing view, though, I like that idea).

We are.  That's what the science of biology is all about.  Take away evolution, and you can kiss biology goodbye.  Might as well kick geology in the butt, too, while you're at it.  

Heh. Well, biology DID have a noticable evolutionary bent, but not much time was actually spent discussing the theory. It was mostly just alluded to as a sort of assumed fact that apparently needed no real teaching at all.

"How could evolution be "disproven", Doc?"

You're right.  Its unfalsifiable.  It can't be disproven, can it?

I never said that it was 'unfalsifiable'.  Bear in mind that we are talking about scientific proofs here, which are empirical in nature.  I asked Doc how HE thought it might be disproven.  He was the one who suggested that it could.  In principle, it could be called into question by contrary data--e.g. rock strata that mixed fossils known to be from very different eons.  Or maybe one could discover a horse giving birth to a cow, for example.  That would blow a hole in modern theory.    On the other hand, arguments that 'Goddidit' are known to be indefeasible.  One can never prove that no god ever created a new species.  Evolution could be valid and gods could still dabble in speciation.

Every doctor, biologist, or even biochemist, that I've asked has told me that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with anything they ever have to do, period...

Sntjohnny, forgive me if I don't trust your methodology for conducting surveys.  Maybe you should have your  study of doctors, biologists, biochemists and others published so that we could examine the details.    In any case, if you are going to mount an argumentum ad populum argument, you might try to populate it with more 'populum'.