Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

If you mean "there's a gap between what really happened and what we know about what really happened", yes, of course. If there wasn't we could close the schools.Evolution is currently the best model that describes the history of life on Earth. It doesn't take any faith at all to know that it's the best theory. And better yet, it isn't perfect, so there's still so much to find out. Nobody says that the theory of evolution, as it is now, is the ultimate truth or that it's perfect. There's much to discover. But just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we can't be pretty sure we're on the right track.We may not know everything about cancer either, for instance, but the proper response to that is not to close the hospitals but to build more schools. There's much to be done in the field of evolution, even though it's already the best explanation of the history of life that has ever been devised.

Pretty much every biologist does. I hate to come right out and say it but the scientists who don't accept evolution are a vast, vast minority. To the degree that mainstream science can act as a unit, as a unit it supports evolution as the best theory. Unfortunately intelligent design isn't even a theory, so it can't even compete with evolution. Those people who believe it is a better theory are simply mistaken, because it isn't a theory at all. Not in the least. It's demonstratable that evolution is the superior theory in regards to living things on Earth. In fact at this point it's pretty much the only theory. Sure enough. See, unlike you I guess, I'm comfortable with a certain degree of uncertainty. Hence, I need have no faith. On the other hand people like you, who need to have their truth be certain, have to take things on faith.Not everybody is like you. It's entirely possible, and common, to come to conclusions about the universe that you're not entirely certain of. No faith is needed to do so. Neither. Evolution is a theory of biology that works; it provides successful explanitory frameworks and makes accurate predictions. It does so better than any competing theory. Therefore we're going to stick with it until it starts to not work. That's not faith; that's how we find out about things here in the real world.

It explains the most data and makes the most accurate predictions. Other theories, like Lamarkianism, are contradicted by observation, or make predictions that do not hold up. No, it's not. It explains nothing; it is supported by no observation; it makes no testable predictions. At this point it's not even a hypothesis. It's just a conjecture. Certainly. At such time as a better theory exists - one that explains more data and makes more accurate predictions than the theory of evolution.Evolution could certainly be challenged. But only once there's a better theory. It's certainly the only theory in any serious consideration. All the others are contradicted by observation, or aren't actually theories at all. I don't have to believe it, though. It works as an explanation whether or not I believe it. No belief required, and no faith. Because the point isn't to find out what is true, because that's impossible. The point is to construct a body of knowledge that explains observations and makes predictions, and evolution does the best job of that of anything anyone has yet come up with. No, it's my experience, and the experience of the vast majority of mainstream science. If there's a better theory out there, nobody has heard of it. Not really. Among biologists there's no controversy whatsoever. There's no more controversy about evolution among scientists than there is controversy about the kinetic theory of gases, or the theory of relativity. Actually quite a bit less than relativity, actually.It's just out here in amateur-land that there's any controversy. Since it's impossible to know the truth, who cares? I'm satisfied to know it's the best theory we have right now, and I'm glad that you agree.

It depends on what we're accepting it for. You've already agreed that it's the best theory; that's the only basis we're asking you to accept it on. Nobody's asking you to accept it as the eternal truth because that would be a violation of the tentativity that stands at the core of science.You keep confusing science with a search for ultimate truth.

I think you're missing the point of his example; being the lesser of two evils is no great accomplishment, indeed.For thousands of years, though, humans toiled under governments that sucked way worse than democracy. Eventually someone thought of democracy, and it was adopted. Do we blame all those people who didn't think of it for all the hardship they suffered? Are we supposed to call them idiots because we know something they didn't?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. But that doesn't make evolution worthless; it's just an indication of how much work we have to do.I don't have a problem with that. Why would you? (AbE: Not you, RAZD. I meant commike.)This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-13-2005 22:44 AM

Accept it as what?

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.

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.

What about that sticker applies to evolution that wouldn't apply to every other scientific theory?I'd have no problem if this:

quote:

---

This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

---

appeared on the cover of every single textbook, but to single out evolution as though only it deserves to be treated critically is disingenuous, and it's a transparently obvious religious ploy. I don't know how often Percy can keep saying that scientific knowledge is tentative until you actually listen. I hope it's soon. Yes. One lesson would be what we've been telling you for many pages - scientific knowledge is tentative.

I'd say that the existence of the people - for instance, the Catholic church - who put their faith in God but believe that evolution is accurate disproves this statement.

But the Catholic church would argue that it's you who puts your faith in man; specifically, in yourself and your own ability to interpret the Bible.Of course, to me, you're both right - each of you puts your faith in the ideas of men. I, on the other hand, live without faith.

If they were thrown out, how do you know about them? Are you the guy that empties the trash cans at Radio-Dating Shack?

Is there some rule that prohibits you from participating in more than one thread at a time? We'd love to discuss the specifics of radiometric dating with you; we just shouldn't do it in this thread.I don't understand what you feel is persecutorial about that.

But if the "complications" you've mentioned aren't, in fact, problems for evolution, then faith isn't required.Don't you understand what we're trying to do? Anything can be debated. The fact that these "complications" you refer to aren't in fact problems for evolutionary theory means that no faith is required to believe in the theory. If you can't see how those are the same subject, then you have no buisness being in this thread. The only things it takes faith to acccept are those things contradicted by the evidence, or for which there is a lack of evidence. That which is supported fully by the evidence takes no faith to accept.