Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution needs faith ?
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 1 of 19 (395642)
04-17-2007 9:28 AM


I keep hearing it, that evolution needs faith to be believed in... While I know that to be wrong, I can't find a way to present "my case". Anyone has any idea (or link) that could point me to the right place ?
I want to know if there is any refutal ?
ps: I performed a search but couldn't find a releveant topic...

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AdminNem, posted 04-17-2007 9:50 AM Kader has not replied
 Message 4 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-17-2007 10:26 AM Kader has not replied
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 04-17-2007 10:40 AM Kader has not replied
 Message 6 by fallacycop, posted 04-17-2007 10:41 AM Kader has not replied
 Message 16 by Stile, posted 04-18-2007 9:21 AM Kader has not replied

  
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 19 (395646)
04-17-2007 9:47 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 19 (395648)
04-17-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kader
04-17-2007 9:28 AM


Expanding the argument
Though I wouldn't ordinarily promote a topic of such brevity, I'm going to oblige you because I think people will still get the gist of the argument.
Please just be sure to expand your argument with a bit more detail when someone chimes in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kader, posted 04-17-2007 9:28 AM Kader has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 19 (395659)
04-17-2007 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kader
04-17-2007 9:28 AM


No case needs to be made on your part. Whoever has said this to you is the one making the assertion. You respond, "How do you figure?" and it's up to them to explain.
If they respond by saying, "Oh no, it requires faith, make your case that it doesn't," then the appropriate response is to curl your hand into a closed C-shape, and move it up and down in the air in a wanking motion. Rolling your eyes couldn't hurt, either.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kader, posted 04-17-2007 9:28 AM Kader has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Larni, posted 04-18-2007 4:13 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 19 (395661)
04-17-2007 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kader
04-17-2007 9:28 AM


Kader,
I keep hearing it, that evolution needs faith to be believed in... While I know that to be wrong, I can't find a way to present "my case".
What they are doing is conflating faith without evidence with tentative acceptance with evidence & in so doing bring you down to their level.
Point out that you accept evolution based on its evidential merits & that that is a very different thing than believing without or in spite of the evidence. It may also help to point out that they are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kader, posted 04-17-2007 9:28 AM Kader has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 6 of 19 (395662)
04-17-2007 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kader
04-17-2007 9:28 AM


I keep hearing it, that evolution needs faith to be believed in... While I know that to be wrong, I can't find a way to present "my case". Anyone has any idea (or link) that could point me to the right place ?
Just point it out to the other person that the theory of evolution, as any scientific theory, is not required to be proved (only math theorems are required to be proved). All that's required from the TOE is that it is supported by the evidence. If he gives you the boggus line that creationism is also consistent with the evidence (Through some strange reinterpretation of the evidence), simply say it's his constitutional right to remain deluded if he so choses, and be done with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kader, posted 04-17-2007 9:28 AM Kader has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 19 (395663)
04-17-2007 10:42 AM


The faith required for evolution:
If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then until we have evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to say that it's a duck.
The faith required for creationism:
I've never looked at it, but I don't believe that it's a duck. I've never observed it walking, but I don't believe that it's a duck. I've never listened to it quack, but I don't believe it's a duck. And my superstitious beliefs tell me that it isn't a duck. Therefore, it is a magic pixie.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 8 of 19 (395670)
04-17-2007 11:21 AM


Although it’s true that he should be the one to explain his point of view, but I already know he can’t possibly explain it, because it’s not true.
So for the sake of discussion, I wanted to take him step by step into showing him that there is no “faith” in evolution, rather it is simply something we can observe. Now I’m not even talking about the theory yet.
But his believe are rather . .closed minded. He believes in the flood geology and in the inherent word of the bible. It might seem impossible to make your point against such belief, but he’s a friend, so we can at least have a conversation.
He his an intelligent man and I just want him to realize that he has no reason whatsoever to say that evolution needs faith, that he only says so because it contradict his own set of belief. And believing that evolution is a load of crap keeps him from having to rethink all of his beliefs.
And to be able to do that I would actually need to step by step get him to understand that there is more evidence for evolution than many thing we consider common knowledge (the electron for example).
I guess he’s last resort would simply be to deny some fundamental fact about evolution. I’m no expert, so I was wondering how could I slowly get him to a point where he can’t possibly deny the evidence for evolutions.
It can be rather vague, but I don’t know exactly what to ask for, since we didn’t have the discussion quite yet
Thanks for the help
EDIT : If anyone have any strong argument against evolution, we could start by that, it'll help to try and understand the other side of the medail.
Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-17-2007 11:30 AM Kader has replied
 Message 15 by Larni, posted 04-18-2007 4:18 AM Kader has not replied
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 04-18-2007 11:23 AM Kader has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 19 (395675)
04-17-2007 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Kader
04-17-2007 11:21 AM


So for the sake of discussion, I wanted to take him step by step into showing him that there is no “faith” in evolution, rather it is simply something we can observe. Now I’m not even talking about the theory yet.
It's an admirable goal. But unless he's willing to explain what those steps are, there's not a lot you can do. If he's insisting on pure gumption alone, without even being able to explain why he thinks it's the case, then trying to change his mind is a waste of time. It's just what he thinks, and reason be damned.
There's a reason we don't walk into padded cells, and say, "Okay, here's my case for why the CIA is not using mind control rays to steal your thoughts." Because if an opinion is based on nothing but insistence that the opinion is true, then there's nothing you can do to convince the opinion-holder otherwise.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Kader, posted 04-17-2007 11:21 AM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Kader, posted 04-17-2007 11:40 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 10 of 19 (395678)
04-17-2007 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dan Carroll
04-17-2007 11:30 AM


There's a reason we don't walk into padded cells, and say, "Okay, here's my case for why the CIA is not using mind control rays to steal your thoughts."
Hehehe it made me chuckle
I agree with you, but since we didn't have the convo, I was more thinking of people providing reason why they think evolution needs faith (there must be some people with that belief somewhere lurking in here) or someone that has an experience with the same kind of debate.
So I can have some idea on how to direct the conversation (because lack of knowledge could wrongly strenghten his belief..sadly)
Edited by Kader, : Horrible syntax

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-17-2007 11:30 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2007 12:21 PM Kader has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 19 (395693)
04-17-2007 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Kader
04-17-2007 11:40 AM


Definitions
I think you will have to stop using the word "faith" unadroned with modifiers.
The word has a number of different connotations ranging from 'trust' to religious faith. First you have to develop a set of words to use in your discussion.
He seems to imply the that "faith" of evolutionists is the same as his "faith" in God. Perhaps you can get him to explain the congruence there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Kader, posted 04-17-2007 11:40 AM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Kader, posted 04-17-2007 12:40 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2007 9:37 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 12 of 19 (395696)
04-17-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by NosyNed
04-17-2007 12:21 PM


Re: Definitions
He seems to imply the that "faith" of evolutionists is the same as his "faith" in God.
Yep exaclty,
I think he will mainly lean on the fact that there is no hard evidence about evolution (but I will point him to all the evidence we have he'll probably use common creationists refutal ie: macro-evolution can't be observed...)
I don't know them all, but with my limited knowledge I can't always point him in the right direction.
Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2007 12:21 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Doddy, posted 04-18-2007 4:01 AM Kader has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 13 of 19 (395848)
04-18-2007 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Kader
04-17-2007 12:40 PM


Re: Definitions
I guess, to sum up the usual responses, the evidence for evolution is pretty good. evolution is an often criticized theory, with many books about it and 150 years of debate, and yet still remains. So, either it is very strong dogma, or is actually a very good scientific theory.
If one dismisses evolution on the basis of the scientific method (the assumption of naturalism - the only non-evidence based part of science, because it is impossible to provide evidence for supernaturalism), then one necessarily dismisses all science. And most creationists don't want to do that - they'd be happy if just some aspects of biology, geology and cosmology were thrown out, and the rest was kept.
PS: I once read a very, very good piece on the idea of methodological naturalism. You can view it here: Naturalism is an essential part of science.
Edited by Doddy, : spelling

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Kader, posted 04-17-2007 12:40 PM Kader has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 14 of 19 (395850)
04-18-2007 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dan Carroll
04-17-2007 10:26 AM


Dan Carroll writes:
If they respond by saying, "Oh no, it requires faith, make your case that it doesn't," then the appropriate response is to curl your hand into a closed C-shape, and move it up and down in the air in a wanking motion. Rolling your eyes couldn't hurt, either.
Arf, Arf!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-17-2007 10:26 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 15 of 19 (395851)
04-18-2007 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Kader
04-17-2007 11:21 AM


You could tell him/her to go away and do some research on biology. At some point he/she would run into the history of the science and he/she could learn it like everyone else has to.
If he/she won't even go that far I suggest the Dan Carroll Defense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Kader, posted 04-17-2007 11:21 AM Kader has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024