Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

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

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

I hope that by "faith" you don't mean religious faith, and in any case, it wouldn't be accurate to say that I put my faith in the theory of evolution. If I put my faith in anything in science, it is that the scientific method is the best way to verify and falsify proposed theories. My basis for accepting or rejecting a theory is based upon the strength of the evidence supporting it. I accept the theory of evolution for the same reason I accept the atomic theory of matter and Einstein's theory of relativity, because of the supporting evidence. All these theories have been put to the test through observation and experiment and been found to be accurate descriptions of reality. That is what makes a successful theory, and that is what convinces people to accept such theories. Correction: *you're* focusing on faith in evolution. When considering scientific topics, my focus is on evidence. If you had stated this a bit differently as "closemindedness to evidence" instead of "closemindedness to other views", then I could agree with you. But what my mind is closed to is consideration of views which are not only unsupported by evidence but also thinly disguised religion. If you could point to evidence that is being ignored that would be a different matter.--Percy

First, to those arguing from a scientific perspective, I suggest that the word truth be avoided because of its easy confusion with religious definitions. I see that some are interpreting truth as meaning something like "observations" or "objective reality", but those arguing from a religious perspective are unlikely to interpret it this way, and as soon as you fail to include your definition of truth in parentheses, it is bound to be misinterpreted.I also suggest avoiding the word faith, for it is vulnerable to similar misinterpretations. In order for both sides to communicate their meaning clearly, we must focus on using words with less possibility of misinterpretation.Now, replying to Commike37: We assess the validity of the theory of evolution by comparing it to evidence from the natural world. We do not accept evolution based upon faith, but upon evidence.Concepts like "objective truth" and "faith" are the realm of philosophy and religion and have no direct role in science.If faith played any significant role in evolution, then there would be parts of evolutionary theory that are insufficiently supported by evidence. In order to make your case for faith in evolution you will have to identify at least some of them.--Percy

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

Yes, that's about right. One doesn't directly compare theories. What one compares is their ability to explain and interpret what we find in the nature world. You're being sold a line. If your list were true, no one would accept evolution. Merely violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would be sufficient reason for most scientists and most people here to reject a proposed theory.This is a science discussion board, so, yes, it does discuss evidence a lot, because theories are based upon evidence. But you're correct that to diverge into these topics would be off-topic, and a distraction, too. My suggestion is that you begin participating in threads that discuss these topics, or propose new topics of your own. Now that I know more about your level of knowledge about evolution, I think this topic may be premature for you, but let's procede anyway and see where we get. I don't think anyone here would argue with you. But incomplete knowledge is not the same thing as no knowledge at all. Newton's three laws of motion still work just fine as long as you don't go too fast. And quantum theory still works just fine as long as you don't try to combine it with gravity. The incomplete nature of knowledge is captured in the property of tentativity that I'm sure I must have mentioned at least several times by now. Science is already fully aware that we don't know everything and never will. You are correct that evolutionary change occurs in exceedingly small steps, but organisms evolve as a group, formally known as a population. A population is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding. Organisms capable of breeding with one another are called a species, and species is the lowest level of classification of our classification system.Once someone has made this realization, the next question they ask is how you know when one species has evolved into another species, and the answer is that you don't, not with any degree of certainty. The world doesn't break down into as simple classifications as we would like. The simplest definition of species is organisms that can interbreed, but there are many closely related species that can interbreed that we still consider separate species, such as the horse and the zebra or the lion and the tiger. Perhaps at some point we can discuss ring species, which is an excellent educational example of evolution across geography rather than time. Maybe it's unnecessary to say this again, but I think most here would agree with you. Evolution is a scientific theory, and like all scientific theories it is tentative. It has the advantage at this point in time of being supported by mountains of data and experimental results, so our confidence in its validity is very high, but doesn't mean it won't one day be falsified. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but evolution is not the "end-all be-all theory." It is, just as you say, just another theory. But that is high praise. I can describe why accepting evolution based on evidence is not faith as many times as you can say we have faith in evolution, but it seems a pointless exercise to keep going round and round. Better would be for you to understand that we do not accept evolution on faith. If you don't believe it, just try arguing that list of "troublesome problems for evolution" that you listed earlier (not in this thread, of course).--Percy

I didn't want to be critical or deprecating, but since you insist on bringing this up again I'll tell you that the items in your list represent are just naive misconceptions about science and evolution. If you doubt this then I think you should follow my suggestion and join some threads where they're being discussed, or propose your own threads. An opinion maintained through lack of knowledge is not worth much. This statement is somewhat contradictory. If the evidence for accepting evolution exists, how is it faith? If a jury freed a man because of exculpatory evidence, would you say they did it based on faith in his innocence? I don't think so. So why would you say something contradictory like this, that evolution has evidence but is accepted on faith? The flaws in Creationism are more fundamental:

• Creationist ideas have no evidence. This is not so much a flaw but more a reflection of the religious, as opposed to scientific, nature of Creationism.
  ​
• Most of Creationism is criticism of evolution. Creationism proposes no actual evidence-based theories of its own. In essence, Creationism proposes Genesis.

Moving on: There is nothing wrong with the sticker as long as it were applied across all science textbooks in the school system. Singling out evolution textbooks for this treatment is an attempt to make it seem like evolution has deficiencies that other theories do not.It is also an attempt to confuse the scientific meaning of the term "theory" with its popular usage. In ordinary conversation someone might say, "Well, it's my theory that crop circles come from alien landings," and this is not the scientific usage of "theory". The person is not referring to a conceptual framework built upon evidence and replicated many times. The sticker attempts to associate the popular meaning of "theory" with evolution, and that is wrong. No one thinks this is utopia. But the scientific method has a solid record of producing successful results, and this is obvious from any examination of the current state of technology within any scientific field. The successes are so stunning that there is really no need to explicitly address your question about how we justify our acceptance of the scientific method. To repeat once again, Descartes' doubt is embraced by science in the concept of tentativity.--Percy

I think sidelined had the best and most appropriate response. The source of everything we know and everything written, be it science or religion, is man.--Percy

Hi Commike37,Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Several people already replied saying somewhat the same things I would have said, so I saw no need to be repetitive, but now that I have a brief period of spare time I thought I'd respond to this: I was speaking in the context of the type of objections you were raising, like your list evolutionary "problems". There is no evidence supporting the first three, and the last two non sequiturs.But even if we expand the context, Creationist ideas still have very little evidence, almost none. About the best Creationists can do is make shallow misinterpretations of existing evidence. For example, Creationists claim fossil layers are evidence of the Great Flood, but it can only look that way to those who are careful to ignore what flood layers really look like, the fossil ordering, radiometric dating, and basic geological principles.Your goal is to show that evolution is accepted by way of faith rather than evidence, but this seems quixotic given the wealth of evidence evolutionists can cite. And no one here thinks evolution represents "truth", not in the sense that you mean it. We only think evolution is an accurate reflection of the data it purports to explain. Theories aren't "truth" handed down from on high. Theories are merely our best attempt to make sense of the natural world.Many claim that there is a greater knowledge, a greater truth, if you will, that stands above science, and I not only don't dispute this view, I agree with it. But science is not involved in the search for these greater spirtual truths. It has the much more mundane task of trying to understand the natural, physical world.--Percy