Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

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 ).

Commike37 Hey, you brought up ID as a theory which is being ignored by us nasty ole scientists. If you don’t like the fact that ID fails on every level as a sciencetough.At the same time you also say that we have to have faith to accept the ToE, so I guess I’m confused as to how you are using the word faith in this thread. You describe it in message 47 as:What is it exactly, to transcend the limits of science? That is to say: what have I done by accepting the ToE that has transcended the limits of science?And what do you mean by "a belief in the imperfections of science" anyway?Here’s how I interpret your idea of using faith:
Let’s say you and I are walking along together and we come to a fast-flowing river that is hundreds of feet across, and neither of us can swim. Your idea of faith would seem to indicate that since you feel that scientists have actually transcend science and also because you don’t trust the imperfections in science, you should simply start flapping your arms and have faith that God will help you to fly across the river.
Me however, I know that science isn’t perfect but I have faith in the guys (and gals) that built the concrete and steel, four-lane highway bridge I see just down stream a bit. I also see a two-lane rock bridge built in 1903, a one-lane wooden bridge that was built in 1879 and an old rope bridge that was built in 1821, all of which serving as potential devices by which I may attempt to cross the river. Additionally, I also have the options of trying to wade across, attempting to swim across, walking on top of the water to cross, or maybe even flying across like you’re gonna do.Now, I personally would pick the 4-lane highway (yes, it includes a pedestrian sidewalk), and I would do so based on my knowledge of science. If you are equating this type of reasonable conclusion with the idea of blinding accepting something as being true as both being equal explanations based on faith, then your arguments are stupid and meaningless, except as some sort of useless philosophical exercise.You seem to think that our current ToE is unchanged since the days of Darwin. That is not the case commike37. We have learned (via the scientific method) a great deal that has added considerable knowledge to our understanding of evolutionary theory. These things that we know and understand are not taken with faith as you seem to see it. We base and trust our conclusions on the scientific evidence.