Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

Although evolution is one of the most widely accepted theories of the origin of life, it certainly isn't perfect. Now my point isn't to go into detail about perceived problems with evolution, but to establish that evolution is still a theory, not a law, and, scientifically speaking, it isn't perfect. This creates a gap between evolution as truth and evolution in reality. To cross this gap and believe evolution as truth despite its perceived flaws, wouldn't one have to take a leap of faith?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi Commike37,I think most evolutionists would agree with what you say. Let me explain why. The "law versus theory" issue was addressed recently in another thread. There is really no difference between a law and a theory, and the question in that thread was why some theories are called theories while other theories are called laws. Several valid factors were mentioned, but the most significant reason is that in the 18th and 19th centuries it was the custom to call a theory a law, and the name has stuck. Hence, we have Newton's Laws of Motion instead of the Newton's Theories of Motion, and we have Boyle's Gas Law instead of Boyle's Gas Theory, and we have the Thermodynamic Laws instead of the Thermodynamic Theories, and so on.We no longer use "law" to name new theories, and probably few evolutionists believe that the theory of evolution should be called the law of evolution. I think most evolutionists would agree that the theory of evolution isn't perfect. It is, after all, a scientific theory that is tentative, and so open to change or even falsification in light of new information or improved insight. Few scientists think of theories as truth, so I think most here would agree with you, though they wouldn't express it quite as you have. They would say that a theory is our best attempt at modelling reality - they wouldn't call a theory truth. It would most certainly be a leap of faith. It sure wouldn't be a leap of science.But the theory of evolution is still the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on earth.--Percy

No, it takes no faith.I don't think there is any doubt that evolution took place. There is simply way too much evidence out there.Now that's evolution.Let me try to deal with the Theory of Evolution. That's a second story. It is a theory to explain the facts that we see. As a theory is is certainly subject to change and revision as we discover new data.So there is no leap of faith or faith involved.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

do we really need this tired old worn-out ignorant argument ... again?

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.

Not all agree that evolution is the best theory. Some people would subscribe to intelligent design as the best theory. I believe that in Kansas the schools teach only intelligent design. So to assume the theory of evolution as the best theory is taking your own leap of faith. Notice the phrase "pretty sure." The question is, how sure is pretty sure? On what foundation have we considered evolution to be the right track? The philosopher Descartes (sometimes known as the founder of Modern Philosophy) opens Meditation I of Meditations on the First Philosophy with the following words Descartes does an excellent job of establishing doubt as a way to remove any pre-conceived assumptions. Now he goes a lot deeper in his doubt than we ever will, but he nonetheless demonstrates the importance of doubt and questioning that which was taught as true. Another thing is that a lot of effort and research goes into evolution, so in this way there is much power behind evolution. But of what nature is power in relation to the sciences? Are we using power as a means to critically analyze evolution, or is power simply a means of giving power to the theory of evolution?

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.

No, as a matter of objective fact "intelligent design" is a worse explanation than evolution. At present it only represents the speculation that there are some aspects of the development of life on earth that cannot be accounted for by theories that do not invoke an intelligent designer. However it has yet to solidly identify even one case. Worse it refuses to go beyond the claim of design - it does not provide anything that might be called a theory which would let u make useful predictions. So at best it would be a sterile ad hoc explanation if it were even needed - which it isn't.And let me point out that Cartesian doubt leaves us with NOTHING beyond our own personal existence that we can call certain. Applying skepticism to that level is hardly appropriate in most situations. And igf you want to suggest that it reduces all beliefs to the same level don't forget that it includes the belief that you are reading this message right now - which is placed on the same level as the idea that you are simply hallucinating and there is no message at all.

Descartes is like Freud, of great historical interest but basically wrong. Kant does a far better job of establishingly the limits of human knowledge in a logically secure manner.That aside, yes, it takes faith to accept evolution as truth. But the faith involved is very different from the kind of faith that is involved in religious belief. It is, in fact, the very same faith that leads me to believe that the chair I'm sitting on is real and is there. I cannot (as Kant ably demonstrates) know¹ that the chair is there and real but there is no rational and reasonable way of going through my life without thinking that it is.¹In the specific sense of Philosophical Certainty.

I think we are going to have to take this nice and slow.

quote:

---

but to establish that evolution is still a theory, not a law

---

Do you understand from the replies already given why the theory of evolution would never become the Law of evolution? Or do we need to explain it in further detail?

quote:

---

scientifically speaking, it isn't perfect

---

The implication being that there are some theories that ARE perfect - could you give us an example?Do you understand the idea of falsification in science and the ramifications of this concept?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 07:41 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 07:47 AM

Scientific Theory:
from
Theory - Wikipedia The theories in the field of evolution fit those descriptions. The concepts of ID do not. The concepts of creationism do not.further down in the same source there is Further explanation of a scientific theory: And again, the theories in the field of evolution fit those descriptions while the concepts of ID and creationism do not. It is that simple, why one is science and the others are not.And the Wikipedia article goes on to discuss all the relevant errors in the phrase "it is just a theory" ... see Characteristics ... as I said this argument is so {old\bad\wrong} that it shouldn't even need response other than to point the person to a source of enlightenment. Wikipedia is one of these. I suggest you read the whole page on Theory before making more {erroneous\ignorant} statements.Note also from
Theory Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com There is a world of difference between definitions #1&2 (as used in science) and definitions #5&6 (as used by common talk and creationists, especially IDists).There is a world of difference between science and pseudoscience.Enjoy.ps -- Kansas teaches evolution. Not that the decisions of school board members is any judgment on scientific validity ... for they are rarely scientists or even knowledgeable in the specific fields. This is one reason I think High School should be the responsibility (funding and curriculum) of the state rather than localities.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hi again commike37First off, I’m just a bit curious.ya ever gonna address my comments in this thread?: http://EvC Forum: The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost -->EvC Forum: The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Specifically reply no. 118. Sorry if I linked this incorrectly...I've never tried this before).Now on to the current discussion. Look, we’ve been over this before but let’s try it again. In science we have a set of rules we must follow called the Scientific Method. Included is the idea that we must have testable hypotheses. Intelligent Design has no such component. Why can’t you grasp this concept? You cannot even claim ID as a science unless you at least state some sort of testable hypothesis. What is it commike37? What hypothesis has any proponent of ID ever stated AND tested? You see, that’s another component of the scientific method. The hypotheses must be testable. That is to say, you must design a repeatable experiment based on the hypotheses (including the null) and see if your idea is supported, or if it shown to be false. (And also keep in mind that we do not refer to something as a theory after a few simple experiments, even if they do support our hypotheses. There are a couple of other threads that address the concept of Theory that perhaps you should read).Go for it commike37, be the first to propose a testable hypothesis for intelligent design. Then design an experiment to test this idea (remember it must be repeatable), analyze your results and tell us what you get. Good luck.I have a question completely unrelated to this thread, but is something that I’ve been wondering for quite some time and am not sure where to find the answer. What do the red, and green, and yellow, and orange lines (with the letters "AM" in front of them) under the thread titles represent? (sorrybut it’s driving me nuts ).

Hi Commike37,Intelligent Design and education in Kansas have been discussed in other threads, and it would seem a shame for this thread to drift off its original topic, so I'm not going to address that part of your post. Your opening post raised the issue of whether the theory of evolution could be considered truth, and I and several others explained that it could not. Now you're raising a different issue concerning our degree of confidence in the theory of evolution and the evidence supporting it. The answer has already been given, but to repeat it, all scientific theories are tentative, imperfect if you prefer, and are therefore open to revision or even rejection in light of new evidence or improved understanding.Concerning your Descartes quote, he is speaking of individuals and the folly of youth, not fields of study engaged in by large groups. Even if we were talking about individuals, the Descartes quote applies as well to you as to anyone else, and in fact, if you're a young person, even better to you. Modern science embraces this viewpoint. What you call doubt is embodied in the tentative quality of scientific theories. Tentative theories are falsifiable, and an important component of new science is to work as hard as possible to falsify your own findings.Replicability is another key component of science. Once one scientist or team of scientists announces a result, other scientists will attempt to replicate it. If replication is successful the finding will become accepted by the relevant scientific community.As I said in my earlier post, I really don't think evolutionists would find much to disagree with in what you say. I think you have a perception that scientists consider the theory of evolution to be an eternal and unchanging truth, but that is not the case. What the theory of evolution has going for it is mountains of evidence gathered over the past couple hundred years, and at an increasing rate. While this doesn't turn evolution into an eternal and unchanging truth, it *does* make it a theory in which we have a great degree of confidence.--Percy

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution is cooncerned with how organisms change.

---

*not an actual doctor