Equating science with faith

Hi OurCynic,I think you might be addressing something that isn't quite what this thread is about, because you say: We're not discussing systems of faith versus systems of science. We're addressing the claim that science is as faith-based as religion. In that case you might be curious why some people believe that science, which stresses evidence and replication, is faith-based.--Percy

Science's acceptance of radioactive dating methods is based upon evidence, huge amounts of evidence. Just give these a brief look to get a rough idea of how much, as these studies on radiometric dating are just a tiny fraction of the total: With so much evidence you can only argue that the evidence is misleading or misinterpreted, not that the acceptance is based upon faith.It is often argued that the rate of physical processes like radioactivity were greater in the past than they are today, but once again huge amounts of evidence says this is not so:

• There are numerous different dating methods, they all confirm each other, and for that to happen with a young earth would require their decay rates to have been accelerated by different amounts.
  ​
• Rapid processes leave different evidence than slow ones. For example, highly accelerated decay rates should have left evidence of recently fission events in uranium mines. There *are* actually such places, in Russia and Gabon, but their concentrations of ²³⁵U were high enough to sustain nuclear reactions at known decay rates. If decay rates were many, many times higher, as this creationist scenario requires, then almost all sites of uranium mines would have been become natural nuclear reactors back then.
  ​
• Had decay rates once been highly accelerated, radioactive isotopes with shorter half lives would be completely absent, since they would have decayed away to negligible concentrations. Their mere presence argues that no such thing as accelerated radioactive decay ever happened.
  ​
• Normal background radioactivity levels in most places in the world are sufficiently low as to not represent a danger to life, but under accelerated radioactive decay would have raised it to lethal levels. The fact that there is still life on this planet argues strongly against this.
  ​
• When we look out into the universe we can see that the physical laws governing the stars were the same thousands, millions and billions of years ago as they are today.

Now you can argue against all this evidence, but it *is* evidence and clearly indicates that the constancy of radioactive decay rates is not accepted on faith. This isn't on-topic, but I'll briefly address it anyway. If creationist scientists can't get published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals, then the solution is not to argue that they deserve special treatment, but to improve the quality of their research so that it *is* accepted for publication. That's how all other accepted science became accepted, and that's the route that creationist science must also follow. Pro-creationism legislation and school district curiculums won't turn creationism into accepted science. Only by convincing their scientific peers will this ever happen. Reference please. Are you referring to Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! by Andrew Snelling, where he says this: Perhaps Snelling has dumbed this down too much for the lay audience, because it doesn't really make sense. That large grains settle faster than fine grains is a basic principle of sedimentology, a principle that goes back literally centuries to Buffon and arguably even before to da Vinci.A couple comments about the part about pouring the granular mixture between two vertical plates and the angle of repose of large grains:

• This picture from Berthault definitely does not show "two vertical plates":
  ​
  ​
• The "angle of repose" portion implies to me the very obvious fact that the spaces between large grains will be filled with smaller grains.
  ​
• As I said earlier, not even the most devout of creationists would argue that the special conditions of Berthault's experiments existed worldwide throughout the flood.

But getting back to the topic, this once again seems a discussion about evidence, not faith. I again think you're not really interested in the topic of this thread. You're just shoehorning your favorite arguments into this thread by claiming anything you disagree with in mainstream science is based upon faith. If a bug ever changed into a reptile it would be evidence that there is something massively wrong with the theory of evolution.Bottom line: you've produced no evidence that the theories of science are faith-based.--Percy

How many do you mean by "a lot of people." Only about 1% of scientists have creationist leanings. When 99% of scientists in the relevant fields consider the evidence sufficient, that's pretty conclusive. You're again arguing for a different interpretation of the (and let me make it more emphatic this time) *evidence*. You're not going to convince a lot of people by adopting a strategy of calling "faith-based" any interpretation of evidence you disagree with. If creation scientists don't believe it's contamination, then they should do the research to produce the evidence that it's not contamination. These are scientific questions which should be decided by evidence. Of course, the questions have already been decided in the minds of 99% of scientists, but creationist scientists are free to continue researching if they like. Of course, it won't mean anything if the research is of unpublishable quality.--Percy

You keep losing sight of the topic. This thread isn't about evolution or radiometric dating. It's about whether science is faith-based. Radiometric dating is just an example we're using.I've been arguing that the foundation of scientific investigation is the gathering of evidence from the natural world, and to support my claim that science's position on radiometric dating is supported by a great deal of evidence I provided lists of many studies about the age of Greenland and lunar rocks, which comprise just a tiny proportion of all radiometric studies that confirm a great age for the earth.You in turn offered counter evidence that radiometric dating is unreliable.Now, keeping in mind that the validity of radiometric dating isn't the topic, it is unnecessary to continue discussion of it because information relevant to the topic is already very, very evident. Both you and I are supporting our positions with (and let me stress this again) *evidence*.Evidence, not faith. I think you're finally begin to touch upon the faith issue. No, I don't know why we need long ages, please explain. So now it's a multi-generational scientific conspiracy? Let's leave conspiracy theories out of this thread, okay? If you want to discuss such a conspiracy you should propose a new thread. Nobody ever asked for special treatment? Do you read the news? Creationists are constantly causing dust-ups by requesting laws and school board policies that give special treatment to their views. The only penalty is for poor science. Creationist views will only enter the classroom in the same way as all other science, by first gathering and presenting sufficient evidence and arguments to persuade the scientific community. Einstein didn't go to school boards arguing for equal time for relativity before Eddington's solar eclipse photos clinched the deal. Wegener didn't ask state legislatures to pass laws for equal representation for plate tectonic theories before conclusive evidence began rolling in.When creationists start focusing their efforts on doing science instead of public relations, then they might begin making progress as a science. As it stands today, creation science has not made any progress since its formal beginnings more than half a century ago. During a period that saw us land on the moon and put powerful computers in every home, creation science has made no progress within scientific circles whatsoever.But if mainstream science were really so far off the rails, then creation science would have little difficulty producing better scientific results and drawing thousands of budding young scientists to their doors, all hopeful for Nobel Prizes working beneath the new paradigm. Bible colleges across the country would become the new centers of scientific study, while the laboratories at universities like MIT, Stanford, Michigan and CalTech would gather dust. Creation science would supplant and replace mainstream science by the superiority of its results.So if, as you state, mutation is truly misunderstood by mainstream science and can actually only cause a loss of information, then creation science researchers should be able to exploit that insight in the development of new drugs and treatment regimens. Creation scientists could become responsible for a wondrous explosion of new medical possibilities and thereby prove the validity of their perspectives on biology, with other fields of science to follow, perhaps by developing better strategies for finding oil and thereby lending support to their geological views.But all this is off-topic. I've already said so much that is off-topic that I won't address the last couple paragraphs of your post that contained a number of basic errors about evolution. I'll just say that to prove evolution wrong you'll have to address things it actually says, not your own misconceptions.--Percy

Hi Beretta,Though I'm replying as Percy, I think it likely that I'll be providing moderator-like suggestions. We generally restrict this type of general charge of some type of malfeasance or fraud to threads designated specifically for that purpose. That's because arguments of this nature can be used in literally any thread, and so we don't allow someone with a propensity for making such charges to bog down thread after thread. We instead restrict their discussion to threads where that is the topic. Precisely. Evidence, not faith. I don't think the argument that geologists and physicists were influenced by biologists to falsely produce data supporting an ancient earth has anything to do with the topic. If you'd like to discuss this then you should propose a new thread. And if you are brainwashed into short ages and creation...In other words, this type of argument is a wash, since it applies equally in either direction. If you really want to argue it, propose a new thread, but please focus on the topic in this thread. If you really want to argue whether what I claimed was actually the case in Dayton, Arkansas, Louisiana, Ohio, Kansas, Dover, etc., propose a new thread. To the extent that that's true then I'm glad to hear it. But notice that inherent in your claim is the assumption that science is based upon evidence, not faith. If you'd like to argue this point then please propose a new thread.I don't think there was anything in your post that addressed the topic. I continue to believe you're in the wrong thread for the arguments you're trying to make. If you keep attempting to raise these issues here in this thread you're just going to get suspended. You can discuss almost anything you like here at EvC Forum, there are literally dozens of different topic forums, but we do ask that you stay on topic. The goal is to have discussions that actually get somewhere rather than becoming mired in a confusing tangle of off-topic side-discussions and personal recriminations.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

By examining and analyzing the evidence.Faith means not having evidence for what you believe but believing it anyway.If science could be reduced to a single principle, I think many would agree that it means making sure you do have evidence for what you believe.--Percy

You quoted CreationWiki back in Message 274, which was the only factual argument about Tiktaalik I could find in your posts in this thread. It argues not that the evolutionary view is based upon faith, but that it is an incorrect interpretation of the evidence.You're not making any arguments in favor of the faith-based view. You're simply arguing that in your view the evolutionary position has insufficient evidence, and that insufficient evidence is faith.Assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct about the evidence being insufficient, a view based upon insufficient evidence is not faith. And it most certainly isn't any kind of religious faith of the type that believes, for example, that when you die your soul goes to heaven.--Percy

Creationism is based upon revelation from the Bible. Evolutionary theory, like all science, is based upon observation of the natural world. The religious definition of faith, which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, can only be applied to creationism.You even agreed with this position. When I defined religious belief using the example of belief that when you die your soul goes to heaven, you said in Message 308, "Well put that way then definitely not. I stand corrected."Any other definition of faith isn't applicable to this discussion and is simply tendentious argument anyway, really merely taking any uncertainty or disagreement and saying, "Aha! Faith!"--Percy

This raises a few questions.If evolution isn't science, what is it?When you say evolution isn't science, is that just a side comment not pertinent to the thread's topic (in which case discussion would have to move to another thread)? Or are you saying evolution is based upon faith?If you are saying that evolution is based upon faith, then what aspects of evolution would you say are consistent with scientists saying, "We have no evidence of this whatsoever, but we believe it anyway." And for any examples you come up with, how is this type of faith at all similar to religious faith, instead of just being, "You're wrong."If you think you have an answer to that last question, then ask yourself what kind of faith is it when someone says, "I believe my destiny is out there somewhere, and I'm going to find it." Is this religious faith?Many of these are just rhetorical questions designed to highlight that evolution specifically and science generally have no resemblance whatsoever to any religious type of faith.--Percy

Someone who examines the evidence and arrives at erroneous conclusions is wrong, not faith-driven. Your position is the same rhetorical argument we've seen time and again from creationists, basically just a shell game with word definitions.When Rahvin says your opinion means less than nothing, that's shorthand for, "In a scientific discussion based upon evidence, unsupported opinion means nothing."--Percy