Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

Faith: This does not mean believing something with no evidence. What it means is maintaining one's open-mindedness about one's religious belief in the face of what appears to be contrary evidence.A mother loses her wonderful, promising child in a freak accident that is nobody's fault. She says to herself, quite reasonably, how could God do this? Either there is no God or he is a cruel being.When something traumatic happens, we tend to define the entire universe based on that traumatic event. Faith tells us not to do this--or at least to try not to. Look at the big picture. Do not define the universe by one incident, or one thought, or one feeling.------I was wondering if this definition of faith might apply in some sense to thoughts about TOE or scientific theories or "laws" in general.

quote:

---

No, you don't have to have faith in the Evidence. That's why no one relies on one sample. That's why you don't rely on one method.

---

I don't see why this isn't getting to you, reliance on a sample of evidence is NECESSARY.If you did not "rely" on the evidence, there would be nothing to base the statement on. You may not rely on all of them, but if none are relied on then there is nothing there.

quote:

---

Fortunately, when it comes to the TOE, we have a record of over 150 years of evidence, experiments, theories, methods and procedures. That's why with over 150 years of challenges, the TOE still stands.

---

This is like the 3rd time you've said this. Not relevant.

---

"For I am the Lord your God, who churns up the sea so that it's waves roar-"
Isaiah 51:15

I did not say rely on a sample of the evidence, I said rely on one sample. Faith is removed because science uses multiple samples, multiple researchers, multiple protocols and procedures. There are built in checks to eliminate faith or even bias as a factor.Fortunately, when it comes to the TOE, we have a record of over 150 years of evidence, experiments, theories, methods and procedures. That's why with over 150 years of challenges, the TOE still stands.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Which is exactly why experiments of importance are expected to be replicated. Why the details are made available for review and critism by more than one person.

---

Strengthening the evidence does not mean it is perfect.

quote:

---

You have a better way? Spell it out in detail.

---

You've missed it, I wasn't aiming for this, rather for jar to admit that he utilizes faith for his belief in Evolution.

---

"For I am the Lord your God, who churns up the sea so that it's waves roar-"
Isaiah 51:15

quote:

---

Fortunately, when it comes to the TOE, we have a record of over 150 years of evidence, experiments, theories, methods and procedures. That's why with over 150 years of challenges, the TOE still stands.

---

Sheesh, this is like the brainwashing in "1984".

quote:

---

I did not say rely on a sample of the evidence, I said rely on one sample. Faith is removed because science uses multiple samples, multiple researchers, multiple protocols and procedures. There are built in checks to eliminate faith or even bias as a factor.

---

What it comes down to really is that you seem to think that the multitudes of reseachers, scientists, and procedures are perfect. I agree though, through replication perfection may come close, I disagree in the fact that it in fact does become flawless in all cases. This makes your faith become visible, to me.

---

"For I am the Lord your God, who churns up the sea so that it's waves roar-"
Isaiah 51:15

BTW, nice speedy replies This message has been edited by prophex, 01-14-2005 16:34 AM

---

"For I am the Lord your God, who churns up the sea so that it's waves roar-"
Isaiah 51:15

No, I don't. I don't expect perfection. But I don't expect it to be flawless. That is the nature of knowledge and science. It is not TRUTH and is not even concerned with TRUTH. It is attempting to explain what is seen and found. It is designed so that flaws are discovered and the system constantly improved.No FAITH.Fortunately, when it comes to the TOE, we have a record of over 150 years of evidence, experiments, theories, methods and procedures. That's why with over 150 years of challenges, the TOE still stands.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which one of us here has asserted that the scientific process provides flawless knowledge about the universe? You're arguing against a strawman.None of us have ever asserted that science provides us with flawless knowledge about the universe; but it is the case that science is the best we have at providing that knowledge.I don't see the faith, except on your side of the aisle, where it is repeatedly implied that unless human knowledge is perfect, nothing is actually known. But there's absolutely no faith required in the world of scientific tentativity; only an openness to knowledge that can never be perfect, but is certainly good enough.

Allright, so it's established that comparing evolution to other theories does not justify its scientific worth. It must be compared to objective reality, 1. Well, I don't want to get too much into evidence, and turn this topic into one big evidence wars (that's what this forum does a lot, so it'd be like concentrating all that effort into one topic). But at least I'll post the five problems that are the "most troublesome to evolutionary theory."
http://www.trueorigins.org/isakrbtl.asp#theory

quote:

---

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

---

It's take faith to transcend any problems that are presented. And these problems don't only happen in evolution. Right now, our world is goverened by two sets of laws: Newtonian mechanics and quantum physics. It can't be possible to live by two different sets, so this is another example of how science is incomplete.2. Evolution is more like a continuum, so it would totally change our perception of animals. The current method of classification (kindom-phylum-order-class-family-genus-species) is commonly used today in textbooks. Evolution would imply that this is false. There are no distinct classes of animals. Just a continuum of different organisms.3. Evolution may not be as logical in the future. As crashfrog writes

quote:

---

At one time, the Earth was believed by many to be flat. That was the best explanation they had avaliable. I'm sure at some point our current theory of evolution will seem as untenable as a flat earth seems today.

---

We were once convinced that the Earth was flat. We were wrong.
We were once convinced of a geocentric view. We were wrong.
We were once convinced that everything was described by Newtonian mechanics. We were wrong.
Evolution may seem so prominent right now, but we must not forget that is only for this day, and not the next.So is evolution really the end-all be-all theory, or is just another theory? How much faith (faith which transcends the current limits and problems of evolution) should we put in evolution as the right road to take in describing our life? For when you have faith in evolution, you inevitably will focus your efforts on proving that which you have faith in.

Hi Prophex,I think Jar is making valid points. Maybe if they're stated in another way it will help. Jar wasn't saying that you don't need to rely on a sample of evidence. What he meant was that one sample is insufficient, and one method is insufficient. In order to validate a theory you need to gather many samples, and verify the theory with as many different methods as practical. Replication is also required by science. After one scientist or group of scientists has done their level best at gathering and analyzing evidence, other scientists or teams of scientists attempt to replicate the results by repeating the experiment. If this happens enough times then a theory becomes accepted.An example of this process is Einstein's general theory of relativity. Einstein formulated his theory primarily with thought experiments and much math, but he showed that it correctly calculated the orbit of Mercury - Newton's laws gave results that didn't correspond to the actual orbit, while Einsteins theory gave the observed orbit. These calculations have been repeated many times, and as the accuracy with which we can measure Mercury's orbit has improved, the correspondence has held up. Later, in 1919, gravity's effect on light was verified by Sir Author Eddington during an eclipse observed in Africa, and this made headlines around the world. Such measurements have been repeated several times in the intervening years, and cosmologists routinely make such calculations when taking advantage of gravitational lenses to peer more deeply into the cosmos. Also very recently, Einstein's general relativity prediction about the effects of spinning mass have been verified using satellite data, and a new satellite is scheduled to launch in the near future to provide further validation.This is an example of what Jar was trying to explain, that science does not rely on a single piece of data or a single experiment or a single scientist's paper. Science is a community activity, and only after a finding has been replicated a number times by a variety of scientists does it become accepted. Except that it *is* relevant. Jar is providing this information so that you understand that evolution has followed the process he described. Evolution has been verified and replicated over and over again through mountains of observations and experiments. No claims for perfection are being made. No scientific theory is perfect. Scientific theories are tentative, meaning that they can change with new evidence and/or insights, and a perfect theory could never change. Evolution isn't unique in this regard. The theory of evolution is a perfectly traditional scientific theory, and it shares the quality of tentativity with all other scientific theories. Faith is when you don't have evidence for what you believe. Since we accept the theory of evolution because of the supporting evidence, that acceptance is not based upon faith. If some part of the theory of evolution *were* based upon faith, then it would be insufficiently supported by evidence. If you think there are aspects of evolution with insufficient evidence then you'll have to call them to our attention. I can believe that it must feel that way, but we're just using repetition in the hope that the point will get across some day. No, of course we don't. This is the principle of tentativity mentioned earlier. We understand that can never know anything for absolutely certain, and so in science all knowledge is deemed tentative. We try to improve the odds that we're correct by gathering evidence and replicating as much as we can, but there's always the possibility that we're wrong. In this we agree, though we'd probably state it in different terms. Through successful replication our assurance that we're correct increases. And we agree with you. It never becomes flawless, not in any case.--Percy

What makes TOE so convincing for me is that the evidence does not consist of only one method, but many converging methods that point to the same conclusion.Before methods of dating came along, they had a lot of evidence based on the placement of fossils. If you did a fossil dig very carefully, you would always find a pattern emerging. The deeper you dug, the more the fossils would be those of simpler and simpler organisms.Then methods of dating came along, and they were able to reinforce the idea that deeper meant older. And they were able to establish the great antiquity of these fossils.And then, not too long ago, DNA analysis became available, and guess what: the DNA analysis backed up what had been concluded before there was any DNA analysis possible. (we are talking about DNA analysis of living species, not fossils--it showed what animals were closely related, less closely related, etc.)Now I don't know a lot about this stuff, but I think you can see that this process I have described is very convincing.But I don't think you want to see it, because you don't have an open mind.I'm as argumentative as anybody, but you can't get much out of argument unless you are willing to carefully examine what the other person says. Sometimes I don't do that, and when I catch myself not doing that, I drop out of the argument.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-14-2005 17:48 AM

Can you IM me about an unrelated issue?Back on Topic.Thank you, I think you may have done a much better job of explaining what I'm trying to say than this old brain is capable of.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not true. Not true; in fact, evolution, nor life itself, could not proceed in the absence of the second law. Not true. I don't see how that's a problem. Evolution has been proved to the maximal scientific extent possible. See, when you attempt to refute arguments that are not being advanced by your opposition, that's a logical fallacy called "the straw man." Who here has said that evolution is the be-all-end-all ultimate truth on the subject? No one.

I feel like we are going around in circles here. Your use of the word theory suggests that you still don't understand how the term is used in science.

All which are demonstrably wrong and require no amount of faith to show that they are wrong. It takes faith to come to a conclusion about something without evidence. This is not being done. Science never claimed to be complete. Your assumption that it has is a distortion. We give classifications for things in a continuium all the time. In light we call things red, blue, green, etc even though there is no natural rule that tells us when red actually becomes orange. Evolution does not imply that the species classification is false just that it may be hard to pidgeon hole some animals into distinct category. Just because something is part of a continuium dosen't mean we should try to classify parts of it if it helps us in our understanding. Even if it did destroy the species classification, there is no reason not to throw out acceptance of old knowledge when something better is discovered. Since we cannot know what we are going to know in the future we tentativly accept that the TOE is true. People have been saying that word for awhile now and I get the feeling that you don't get it. Tentative. It is what we know for now that is the best. No part of science is end-all be-all. Once again, scientific theories are held to be tentativly true so that progress can continue. If one of those theories is false then try to use it in a future circumstance should uncover problems. This has even happened with the TOE which is why we have punctuated equillibrium. Since you are assuming that people who accept the TOE do so by faith it is hard to respond to you. You are not asking a question you are stating your opinion. We should use the TOE as our best theory regarding the change we see in life until that theory is no longer the best one. Only by using the TOE in further research will we ever discover IF there is something wrong with it so proceeding with it held as tentativly true is pretty much the only way anything can be done. This is in no way focusing the effort in a biased way. It is simply progressing with the best knowledge that we currently have. How could you expect more?