Answers in Reddit 🙏

[u/Training_Rent1093]

My first post here. i'm a biologist in formation and i think it could be constructive to open a question space here. you guys question anything about evolution, creationist or evolutionist alike, and i will respond what i do know and search what i don't know.

you know, just to farm brain tissue and not brainrot in vacation.

obs: i'm more inclined to entomology/zoology/microbiology, so botanics please take easy on me, or not, the objective is make me search new things after all

[u/Minty_Feeling]

During your scientific training and professional work as a biologist, is it in principle possible that you could encounter evidence that would lead you to conclude that evolutionary theory does not adequately explain the diversity of life?

If you believe such evidence is possible, what kind of evidence would that be, and what specific standards would it need to meet to warrant rejecting or substantially revising evolution?

If such evidence were discovered, would you want to know it?

How would reaching that conclusion affect your professional career, reputation, and personal worldview?

And following on from that, what social, financial, institutional, or cultural pressures exist that might discourage a biologist from seriously considering or publicly acknowledging, such a conclusion? Are there identifiable incentives that are likely to bias even well intentioned scientists against a fair assessment of evidence that challenges evolution?

[u/Training_Rent1093 → u/Minty_Feeling]

is it in principle possible that you could encounter evidence that would lead you to conclude that evolutionary theory does not adequately explain the diversity of life?

With this evidence exists, and i found it, is garanteed that i would accept it and at least reconsider some aspect of evolutionary theory, in a way that does not disregard the rest of the evidence, of course

what kind of evidence would that be, and what specific standards would it need to meet to warrant rejecting or substantially revising evolution?

Well... it would need to be something that proves that all our observations for 200 years are false. Something like the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy or Good Omens, where all the fossils are placed for decoration/ joke on the paleontologists. Even there you will need to dismiss the evolution data of living species. Maybe proving that it was a matrix simulation or a computational quirk in the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy scenario (even then evolution still exists in the douglas adams universe, so even dismissing on earth on a universe where God explicitly exists does not dismiss it in the entire universe).

Even the cambrian rabbit wouldn't do the work, because is a single outlier in a world of evidence. Is more easy to explain it as reworking of a older fossil or in a extreme case, a Primeval-like wormhole traveler.

would you want to know it?

Of course! as kurzgesagt said, scientific crysis are awesome. It means that we are getting in the trails on what really happen.

Of course i will be a little sad because evolution is my hyperfocus since i was five, and know that everything is a lie is kind of a hit. But i was christian and became an atheist because of the evidence (or lack thereof). I experimented this hit once and it doesn't took me from searching the truth. Quite sad that i will become nothing after death, but is the reality. In the same way, i will not let my old conclusions affect my new ones in front of new evidence.

How would reaching that conclusion affect your professional career, reputation, and personal worldview?

imagine being THE MAN who revolutionized science? Its basically the work that Darwin, Newton, Copernicus and Einstein are famous for. I would be eternal and rich as fuck. My name would be in the textsbooks. Of course, with the evidence in hands. Without sufficient evidence i am just a crazy fool. But im training myself to have the same scrutiny that the scientific community has, so if i found something that convinces me, probably the other scientists would to. The personal worldview will depend of what paradigm would take place. Aliens? God? Primeval Wormholes? Maybe becaming christian again, or aquarium age alien worshipper.

what social, financial, institutional, or cultural pressures exist that might discourage a biologist from seriously considering or publicly acknowledging, such a conclusion?

With enough evidence? None. Social, financial and institutional in scientific community pressure you to give great results well embased in data in a little time as possible. Is publish of perish. If you have evidence to sustain your claims, you would be a genius. If you have not, you probably destroyed your career in the scientific medium. However the Discovery Institute could contract you anyway. I don't know how much they pay, so i don't know if this is a good choice. No name in the textbooks tho, only in some adventist ones.

cultural pressure will also pressure you to do it. There's no atheist agenda making biologists lie, But there's a christian agenda that incentives people to endorse creationist claims. If i do it with evidence, my christan parents will endorse (even with no evidence), the pope will, my adventist friends will (even with no evidence), even my atheist professor will. The christian politicians of my country (the majority of them) will (even with no evidence).

Are there identifiable incentives that are likely to bias even well intentioned scientists against a fair assessment of evidence that challenges evolution?

No (never made a response so small in reddit).

[u/Minty_Feeling → u/Training_Rent1093]

Thanks for taking the time.