The most persuasive evidence substantiating any specific scientific knowledge, be it evolutionary theory, quantum physics, cosmology or biology is the connectedness of ALL OTHER scientific knowledge, from within or from without a given field.
Faith based, CT, or ID posters, more often than not, attack a scientific idea by pointing out a gap in the available information, a "missing link" of some kind. What they don't see, because they usually lack basic science, is that the "gap" they percieve is usually surrounded by a web of interlocking information from other fields.
Gaps in the fossil record (if they still exist) are used to refute E.T., in spite of the overwhelmingly broad linkage of data in support of it. The gap between quantum mechanics and general relativity is used to discredit both. It's as if one, when faced with a gigantic spiderweb of of linked fibers, would choose only to see the empty space between them.
A great example of interlocking knowledge can been drawn from Darwin's day, when there was a very broad question in the minds of geologists about the actual age of the Earth. Darwin knew that evolution required time to work, but really had no idea how long the Earth had existed. Physical models suggested that the Earth's core temperature, being as hot as it was, proved the Earth to be quite young. It wasn't until physicists could describe radioactive decay that it was understood that the Earth's core could still be hot after the billions of years of its existence. Thus it really required all three disciplines, physics, geology and biology, the specific work of research in each, fitting together to solve a single great puzzle - was the Earth old enough for evolution to account for what can now be observed?
In the face of easily obtainable information, it's hard to understand the overwhelming ignorance one comes into contact with. The average person can't explain how their car or television set works. That one can be surrounded by functioning examples of the fruits of scientific development and choose to remain ignorant of their basics is quite remarkable, I think.
E.O. Wilson's "Consilience" does a splendid job of making the point of how the unity of knowledge fortifies and validates "particular" knowledge. Wilson is the consumate synthesist - connecting far-flung dots without apparent effort and weaving them together into a convincing "net". I've taken Wilson's ideas of consilience to heart, and use them often as a starting point when I find myself in a discussion with a Creationist, Fundy, etc. It goes something like this:
"Were you watching television last night? Well, that proves Darwin was right."
And then you get to work, going from quantum mechanics to DNA.
Lotta fun.
Faith based, CT, or ID posters, more often than not, attack a scientific idea by pointing out a gap in the available information, a "missing link" of some kind. What they don't see, because they usually lack basic science, is that the "gap" they percieve is usually surrounded by a web of interlocking information from other fields.
Gaps in the fossil record (if they still exist) are used to refute E.T., in spite of the overwhelmingly broad linkage of data in support of it. The gap between quantum mechanics and general relativity is used to discredit both. It's as if one, when faced with a gigantic spiderweb of of linked fibers, would choose only to see the empty space between them.
A great example of interlocking knowledge can been drawn from Darwin's day, when there was a very broad question in the minds of geologists about the actual age of the Earth. Darwin knew that evolution required time to work, but really had no idea how long the Earth had existed. Physical models suggested that the Earth's core temperature, being as hot as it was, proved the Earth to be quite young. It wasn't until physicists could describe radioactive decay that it was understood that the Earth's core could still be hot after the billions of years of its existence. Thus it really required all three disciplines, physics, geology and biology, the specific work of research in each, fitting together to solve a single great puzzle - was the Earth old enough for evolution to account for what can now be observed?
In the face of easily obtainable information, it's hard to understand the overwhelming ignorance one comes into contact with. The average person can't explain how their car or television set works. That one can be surrounded by functioning examples of the fruits of scientific development and choose to remain ignorant of their basics is quite remarkable, I think.
E.O. Wilson's "Consilience" does a splendid job of making the point of how the unity of knowledge fortifies and validates "particular" knowledge. Wilson is the consumate synthesist - connecting far-flung dots without apparent effort and weaving them together into a convincing "net". I've taken Wilson's ideas of consilience to heart, and use them often as a starting point when I find myself in a discussion with a Creationist, Fundy, etc. It goes something like this:
"Were you watching television last night? Well, that proves Darwin was right."
And then you get to work, going from quantum mechanics to DNA.
Lotta fun.