On the appeal to authority and "other" ways of knowing

I was reading Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" the other day, when he was talking about comfortably handing over the knowledge of specialized stuff to experts. And it got me to thinking about how occasionally, a creationist will come out with this odd accusation that I (or other rational folks) "believe" in evolution the same way they "believe" in their faith. I've discussed the difference between believing and knowing here before (I think), and discussed why these people can't understand that. But I suddenly realized a much simpler way to answer the accusation.

One's "beliefs" in unprovable nonsense are solely based on what the priest or shaman or whoever says, what is commonly called "revealed" knowledge. You can't hear god(s) talking to the Head Guy, you weren't there when the angel came down and said what was what, you weren't there, you have no way of being or getting there, you have nothing to go by other than what the Head Guy says. Yet this Guy is trustworthy, he seems to mean well, and his message is pretty ok by you. You can make a "leap of faith" and believe as true that the Flying Spaghetti Monster came down and touched the Head Guy with His Noodly Appendage, even though you do not and will never have proof. Fine.

Now you, religious guy, are talking to me, rational gal, about evolution. You claim that because I don't know 100% everything about evolution, that I am making a similar "leap of faith" to believe what all those smarmy professors are telling me. Them with their microscopes and lab coats -- can't you see they're really just priests?!

Now listen -- this is the good part. My "belief" in evolution does not come from mysterious "revealed" wisdom. Darwin did not recieve knowledge from some space monkey (har!), the idea for descent with modification was not beamed directly into his brain. Current experts on evolution are no different. Ok, wait. That's not the good part. This is the good part. Listen. If I had the time, the energy, and the inclination, I could go back to school and study biology and find out all this stuff for myself. There is a path I can follow to prove it to myself if I have to. Hell, I could even hike on down to the Galapagos and look at the blasted finches myself.

In conclusion, a "leap of faith" that is based on revealed knowledge is irrational, and there is no way to confirm the truth of the fundamental premise. A "leap of faith" where you believe what a consensus of experts tells you is rational, and if need be, provable to your own personal satisfaction.

Further Reading:
Skeptico summarizes the "appeal to other ways of knowing."
Bronze Dog discusses "science as religion."

We're all doomed (nothing new here)

Sorry I've been gone for so long! As many of you probably know, tha Joelster broke his leg at the beginning of the month, then I had to go to Jersey for a week. Last week I've just been so busy with work, then coming home to go to the gym, cook dinner, cleanup dinner, and sleep that I haven't really had much time for blogging.

In any event, I heard something on the radio that was fairly emblematic of the place this country is in currently:

"...former Nixon conspirator and spiritual advisor to George W. Bush..."

Ack.