Faith, Creation, and Evolution

Are either creation and evolution able to be completely proven without any shread of faith involved and only with science?EditI think this has narrowed the question down a bit and given it more of a base to work from. Can evolution be proven without faith? I've taken the definition of faith from "The Pocket "Webster School and Office Dictionary".
FAITH
1. belief not based on proof or evidence
2. belief in God, religious doctrines, etc
3. a system of religion
4. complete trust or confindence
5. fidelity; loyaltyUsing the definitions of 1, 4,and maybe 5.I chose these ones because I really don't think that evolution is a system of religion and definitely not a belief in God. I would like someone to prove to me where the stuff that was in the "Big Bang" thing came from with no faith involved-by prove I mean; what is very very likely to have occured, or if it's even possible. I don't know if this is very clear, but where did the origonal mass come from... I guess. How did we go from scum to animals to humans? Anyone who has some ideas, thougts, or science to back up their point of view please respond.This message has been edited by wil_ie, 10-23-2004 12:49 AMThis message has been edited by wil_ie, 10-26-2004 11:49 AM

Welcome to EvC! It might take you a bit of time to get used to how things work around here. Most of the 'regulars' will be glad to help out.As an example, we will help get your opening post (OP) tuned up so that it will get the thread off to a better start.It is an interesting question (but really 2 or 3 questions). However that is not an adequate exposition of the core theme you want in the thread.I also think that you have two threads (or even more).There is the issue of faith involved in each of the two separate areas.Then there is the issue of just what "faith" is taken to be as well. You would have to, at a minimum, define that term rather well for the discussion to proceed.In addition, there are several threads on whether evolution is a religion. Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism?
Faith versus Science
Blasphemy in SciencePerhaps: Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]There I've put more work into this than you have. You'll have to do better to start a thread.In summary, I would suggest at least 3 threads:
1) What is "faith"?
2) Can evolution be proven without faith?
3) Can creation(ism?) be proven without faith?In each case you would need to put forward your position in more detail and then enough of an idea of where you want it to go so we can enforce some adherence to the topic.(added by edit)
An example of a more clearly defined topic is the new one:
Can science support creationism?This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-20-2004 01:14 PM

I think this has narrowed the question down quite a bit and given it more of a base to work from.
Can evolution be proven without faith? I've taken the definition of faith from "The Pocket Webster School and Office Dictionary"
FAITH
1. belief not based on proof or evidence
2. belief in God, religious doctrines, etc
3. a system of religion
4. complete trust or confidence
5. fidelity; loyalty
Using the definitions of 1, 4, and maybe 5.
When I say without faith I mean all of it not pieces-from beginnning, like where did everything come from up until the present like how we got here.

I'd ask that you edit into the opening post.I also won't approve it until you explain a few things:1) Why would you use the 4th and 5th defintions of the word "faith" since they are so very different from the other 3? If you use those then there is some faith in pretty much anything and there is no discussion required.2)If you wish to discuss evolution then you will have to limit it to that. The addition of "everything" seems a bit excessive. "Everything" seems to include, well, everything. Since there are many parts of 'everything' that we don't know about how can we possible use the word "proven" in regards to that. Again there is no discussion.3) I now notice that you've used the word "proven". That happens to be a loaded word. A technically correct usage in science is pretty much only in the area of mathematical proof. If you want that level of "proof" there is no arguement. The real world (and religious ideas) do not allow for that kind of proof. So again there is no discussion needed.If you simply mean by proof "shown to be very, very likely to be correct" then say so and we can carry on.Please edit any changes into the original post. With that cleared up I think it can fly as a good opening topic. Thanks.

So is my topic ready to go now?
You haven't said anything else aboutit.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.Sorry about the delay but you didn't actually take all I said to heart. As I'll try to demonstrate with my alter ego.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-01-2004 08:56 PM

The original source of the big bang is not, at this time known.The current understanding of the unfolding of the universe after the big bang is based on a number of observations that we make AND additional calculations that produce a pretty good description of the current state of matter in the universe.However, since there are still a number of issues left to resolve there is active, ongoing research in this area. Therefore nothing is "proven" even in the lose colloquial view of the word. Therefore nothing is taken on "faith" even in the rather wide open form of the definitions you have chosen to use. Without explaning why you choose to use them I might add.The definitions of "faith" that you have used are so different from the formal defintions of "faith" as it applies to what we normally think of as religious matters that it is clear that it doesn't matter if any of this does have some form of "faith" 4 and 5 in it.None of it has faith type 1 in it. Other than a personal view by many scientists that it will be, in the long term, possible to know how the universe started which maybe be taken as not based on direct evidence.However, many other areas have been successfully explained by science and moved from the sphere of religions (faith type 2 and 3) to the sphere of science. This could be construed as evidence that this kind of success will be continued. I wouldn't call it very strong evidence but it is not a belief based "not on proof or evidence".

Well, creation is not, because it's not a scientific proposition, but a supernatural one.On the other hand, evolution can be and has been substantiated as well as any other scientific theory, like the Germ Theory of Disease or the Kinetic Theory of Gases. The evidence is pretty clear and no amount of faith is required; if you don't believe the conclusions of scientists you can examine the evidence yourself, repeat the tests, make the observations, do the experiments, and try to come up with a different theory.None of your three definitions apply to evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, so 1 is out. As a scientific theory, it is held tentatively, subject to revision in the light of new evidence, which means that we don't have complete trust in it. So 4 is out. And scientists stand ready to discard the theory immediately in the face of disconfirming evidence or a better model, so we're not really "loyal" to it.So, no. No faith is required to understand that evolution is, scientifically, the most accurate description of the history and diversity of life on Earth. Keep in mind, though, that's all it describes. The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.