You seem to assert that what you believe is true is true and that there is no room for discussion. That is dogmatic in my understanding. It would be like me saying that you had to be baptized by full immersion or you were going to hell because Jesus says to baptize all nations. Rather, you are saying believe "common ancestry" because I believe all these "facts" presented by scientists.
That is not my position. There is room for discussion. Early on I asked for anyone to provide me with a better explanation to account for common pseudogenes in primates. Specifically humans and chimpanzees. It fits perfectly well and indeed would be expected in an evolutionary model that includes common ancestry. Pseudogenes are the markers we use all the time to determine paternity and consanguine relationships. We use them in our legal system to convict or exonerate criminals. But when the same pseudogenes also show not only humanity's relationship with other animals but matches temporal distance of kinship expected by evolution in most cases, suddenly there must be some unnamed problem with using them as evidence. I feel that if someone denies genetic evidence for evolution then it is only honestly consistent that they adamantly oppose the use of DNA in our legal system for paternity or criminal conviction since it is based on the same understanding and same types of markers.
You see, these are not just statements. The evidence is tangible in the cells of every living thing. I believe you have a responsibility put forth an effort to understand what evidence leads scientists to accept a particular conclusion. Scientists are not accepting a statement. They are observing and interpreting and then justifying the interpretation with logical inference, deductions, experimentation, etc... It is wholly different than the baptismal example you gave. An example I am familiar with since I grew up in a complete immersion church.
The most obvious way the two are different is in the results. There is no general consensus opinion on baptism in christianity. It is given different weight and different meaning by a variety of churches. I would not expect christianity to ever reach a general consensus about baptism among all the churches throughout the world. But scientists have reached a general consensus about common ancestry throughout the world. How? They're people too, just like christians- with their own opinions, doubts, and beliefs. But it works because science relies on logic and observation of the world, not on authoritative sources like leaders or scripture. People can have differing opinions. But logic generates consensus. It's the same reason we don't have differing opinions on what 2 + 2 equals.
Sure, you might throw out tons of "documentation" backing up your beliefs, but the fact remains, that I am unwilling to take a scientist's word for it until he can show me how whales become dogs or monkeys become humans. Simply saying that it happens is not sufficient for me.
Scientists have shown "how" those things could happen. As I said, I believe you must take some responsibility to educate yourself on how scientists say these things could happen if you find it doubtful. Do you accept when scientists tell you the Earth goes around the sun? Do you accept when science tells that we are made of atoms? Do you accept when science tells you that germs cause disease? It is inconsistent to only accept scientists at their word when one chooses to. It is the same sort of mentality that lets people pick and choose out of religion the parts they want to accept and just conveniently deny the uncomfortable parts.
I understand that there is a lot of evidence supporting your beliefs. Yet, evidence does not always lead to the truth. Wasn't it you that earlier in this thread had an example of a murder where the evidence pointed to a husband murdering his wife? Every bit of evidence might lead the investigators to believe that the husband murdered his wife, but the truth could be that the husband was innocent and the lover killed her and framed the husband.
Evidence is not proof.
Proof is a video tape of the husband killing his wife. Proof is a confession. Proof is an eye witness who's testimony cannot be impeached. Proof is something that scientist have not found in regards to this matter.
Scientists may have very good reasons for standing by this theory. They have every right to say that the preponderance of the evidence points us in this direction, but that is not proof.
It is true that evidence is not the same as proof. And that is why science never declares itself to have proven anything in the ultimate sense. Have our experiments proven- in the sense of absolute certainty- that all matter consists of atoms? Scientists would say no. It may be confident enough to declare it irrational to disbelieve at this point, but that's not the same as absolute proof.
A video tape can be altered or unclear, a confession can be coerced. And I think it is most fitting that you mention eyewitness testimony. I believe it is one the most critical weaknesses in our justice system that we put so much weight on eyewitness testimony. Test after test in neuroscience and psychology show that eyewitness testimony is among the most unreliable evidences available. The eyewitness usually doesn't even realize it. Case in point, 60 minutes recently had a story of a woman who was raped. She knew there was nothing she could do so she steeled her resolve and just stared at the guy trying to memorize his face in detail. Afterwards she reported to the police and gave a description. They captured a man fitting it nearby. She picked him independently out of two separate line-ups and identified him as her rapist. For 20 years she rested easy knowing he was in jail. She recalls getting chills when he looked at her at the trial.
Then they found out she was wrong. The real rapist was in prison elsewhere by now. DNA testing confirmed that the man she had accused was innocent. They have since become friends.
The irony is that you offered impeachable eyewitness testimony as "proof", yet it was the dna evidence that you deny (with regards to evolution) which ultimately set an innocent man free while your "proof" is what wrongly convicted him.
The evidence is all we have. If you are looking for absolute certainity in anything, you will not find it except in irrational convictions or true dogma- not science. It makes no claims to absolute certainty. But when you see examples like manipulation of a gene to cause chickens to grow crocodilian teeth (remnants of their dinosaur ancestry), observation of speciation events in fruit flies, the wealth of the fossil record, genetic similarites unexplained by any other theory to date, antibiotic resistance development in bacteria...it seems less and less rational to deny the implications of the evidence simply because they make one uncomfortable.
) to update some of your scientific perspectives, despite having been filmed in '79 or the early '80s (man, when you see the haircuts...what were we thinking?!). He presents all the information scientifically and doesn't show his bias against religion often. Ever read the book or seen the movie Contact? So we know he resents religion's part in the suppression of science and information in the past and his apparent perception that those who aren't religious are persecuted, oppressed, or out of favor with general society. But he realizes he's biased and tries to deal with religion open-mindedly.
