The bathroom door is locked. Someone is in. I say, “Peter”. Paul answered: “No, it’s me”. A very simple situation: I asked a question, I assume (hypothesis) that it was Peter using the bathroom. My assumption was wrong. A very simple, verifiable answer shot back. In this case, and others like it, there is no need to speculate.
Water boils at 100 degree celsius. I want to know if it would boil high up in the mountain. To find the answer, I climb to the peak of a mountain, and there, my question is answered. This takes some time and a bit more determination to find the answer. Nevertheless, the answer is definitive. There is no need to speculate.
Einstein’s General theory of relativity was first thought on paper. At the time it was formulated, there was no technology to verify the truth or falsity of his theory. It took several decades to find out. Nevertheless, the answer was definitive.
The situation is slightly different with the theory of evolution. Yes, we do have fossils of animals that lived millions of years ago. Yes, we do have some evidence that the environment can alter DNA. But, you’ll need to live long enough to see species evolve to another but different species. And, we were told that this process takes more than 10,000 years. But when it comes to choosing which theory best explains how species come to be, the theory of evolution wins out - at least for now.
So, if you’re looking for answers to your specific questions, then you only need to point to the facts that everyone can see; or, in the case of theories, judge the one that best explains a wide collection of related facts. Whether it is a theory or an assertion about facts, facts always have to take the center role. Without involving facts, you can’t form a judgment. These are rules of the game that scientists, lawyers, police (to name a few) that they play. And, there are many players who join in, but who are not scientists, lawyers or the police. However, because of the great majority of people joining in, people tend to believe in the kind of truth that came out of this game. So much so that they would also apply the very same notion of truth on other games that don’t share the same rules.
Think of the debate on the existence of God. Many try to prove the existence of Supreme being by referring to facts. Yet, these very facts could also be used to prove otherwise. It’s as though proving God’s existence with the rules that scientists, lawyers, and politicians, would be a valid reason for believing in a God (or, the immortality of the human soul). None has seen God the way we experience storms, floods, killing, deformity, etc. And, yet these things are taken as proofs for God’s existence. And, yet these very same ‘proofs’ are also used to support His non-existence.
If you’re going to play chess, don’t apply the rules of checkers, or basketball, or baseball. It just doesn’t work. No matter what, people just go ahead and do it. The break the rules all the time.
