Belief (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 05, 2011, 15:13 (5070 days ago)

I'm in no position to comment on the latest theory of "dark flow", but on reading through the posts on that thread I've been particularly struck by the interchanges between Matt, Tony and David regarding "proof". -MATT: To put it bluntly, even if it's the only explanation in existence for this, it is also the best one. This is also my answer to your other question on evolution by NS. Until a better, more powerful theory displaces it, it's all we have. So I accept it. -MATT: Well, as long as we remember that science isn't about 'proving' but model building, we'll avoid the pitfalls associated with 'proof'.-TONY: If science is not about proving anything, but about model building, then why demand proof from religion?-DAVID: I've come to believe in a universal intelligence because nothing else makes sense to me.-We all seem to agree that for the most fundamental questions, there can never be 'proof'. Matt, however, accepts the theory of evolution by NS. I too accept that evolution happened and that Natural Selection constantly takes place, ensuring the survival of existing creatures according to how well they can cope with their environment. But I don't understand the processes of innovation ... how totally new organs and species actually come into being (see my post on the fossil finds in China, David's comment on novel forms after the Cambrian Explosion, and David's latest remarkable post on single cell to multicellular). -This raises two issues: -1) Matt, when you say you accept evolution by NS, do you also accept that there are huge gaps in the theory of evolution as a whole? 
2) If you accept a theory which is riddled with uncertainties and unanswered questions, because you think there is nothing better or more powerful, on what grounds do you criticize David for doing the same (nothing else makes sense to him)? -My motive in asking these questions is also twofold. I'm interested in whatever explanations anyone has for innovation, because the general theory has greatly influenced my own thinking. -But I'm also interested in why and how people believe (and I take "accept" to mean "believe"). I myself can't believe something if I see flaws or gaps in the reasoning or evidence, whereas most other contributors to this forum evidently can. That's not a criticism. In this context, any intelligent person with a firm belief has to be aware that there are gaps. It's a matter of how people cope with them. And so I'm really asking: how do people gain a genuine inner conviction (= belief, as opposed to a "maybe") that something is true, even when they know there are gaps in the pattern?