Faith, Creation, and Evolution

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'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.

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