@neologist,
Quote: Do you believe most believers in evolutionary theory truly understand the 'science' behind it?
The only belief I hold is in the accuracy of the data used in evidence. The sciences are hardly perfect as the Piltdown man, Swanscombe man, The "Hobbit" and several "manufactured" birds from Liaoning show us. But science, IS self correcting . When religions finally accept science, its usually only after the mound of evidence is irrefutable and the clergy would look silly . (It only took a minor stipulation on evidence to have a 20th century Pope submit that the science behind natural selection was pretty undeniable)
I do believe that the vast majority of people who accept natural selection are quite familiar with it because it is an amazingly simple concept brilliantly and simply presented. Reading Darwin should begin with his "Voyage of the Beagle", a great tale of exploration written in a style that , once it is clearly understood, is able to carry you easily through his "Origin of SPecies..."
"Origins..." is not really about a mechanism , so much as it is a lab workbook of the mechanism of natural selection. Its mostly about His experiments , observations, and collections of evidence that underpins the theory (Which he actually wrote and developed 15 years before his panic publication of "Origins...")All this is presented along with his (sortof) Victorian "Oh wows" and "Gollees" as only he could present .
The actual science behind Darwin has gotten increasingly specialized , its true. However, Darwin was totally unaware of the science of genetics (When he first penned his outline in 1844 Mendel's work was still 2 decades off. Further, he was free of the knowldge provided by the discovery of DNA, which,while it occured in the 1870's, was not understood to be a life coding apparatus until the 1930's). So ctually understanding and accepting evolution from Darwin's POV is crystally clear and presented as convincingly as is possible. His concepts were and are simple, precise, and concise.
I dont think most anyone would have a hard time understanding evolution if presented in a fashion that uses Darwin as a framework and goes on from there. Several of our regulars herein(like spendius) actually mock the science of Nat selection as so easy nd idiot could understand it. Ill agree with Dr spendi there. The actual evidentiary sciences that prove much of what Darwin said are, full of math, maths, expensive equipment, and lots of field work. These sciences do develop languages and "tongues" that become difficult to grasp but sooner or later, someone comes al;ong and writes a really simplified explanation of what it was that Watson and Crick found and what Dr Fairbanks discoveredabout the DNA overprints between a chimp and a man.
Maybe it does take "effort" but I cant see how memorizing a bunch of old Biblical tales about things we know didnt occur (like a Flood over the planet or a 7 day event culminating in special creation) is a reasonable use of ones mind.
If you are intimating that people are accepting stuff I or set , MJ or Rosborne may say from some kind of "authority", you are waaaayoff sir. I think youd be surprised at how well understood nat selection is herein and its not from anything we do. A bunch of us merely like to get into dustups with those whose worldview is based not so much on fact as legend. We may be a bunch of busybodies but anytime people drop in with comments pro-scence, they are rarely wacky. They are usually pretty well thought out and often quite deep.
Even spendi, who is a consumate contrarian, only adds another form of wordplay to our soup. He just likes to take whacks at all sides for being just as he. (I think he suffers from an intense form of Post Vatican 2 guilt compounded by ADD).
. I don't mind an occasional 'impact' from you, either.
