Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

You can keep saying that faith is involved but I assure you that is incorrect.But there is a big difference between faith and a decision based on experience and evidence.Again, I don't know who taught you science but I can say they didn't do a very good job. The whole purpose of the Scientific Method is to remove faith from the exercise. This is why you have the conditions of openness and reproducibility.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This topic isn't about proving evolution. It's about putting faith in evolution. I have another topic about the actual theory itself, called "Proving Evolution in the Age of Genetics," in the Biological Evolution forum. But all I've been hearing now is "We have lots of evidence. We have lots of evidence. We have lots of evidence..." I haven't seen much of a capability to think deeper beyond that.

Well no offense but your line of questioning has been so weak, what were you expecting?I've seen nothing that would warrent any detailed reply.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 19:05 AM

quote:

---

You can keep saying that faith is involved but I assure you that is incorrect.

---

Don't remove your own interjections.

quote:

---

Again, I don't know who taught you science but I can say they didn't do a very good job.

---

Please refrain from insulting, I know it's hard.

quote:

---

But there is a big difference between faith and a decision based on experience and evidence.

---

You're right, one needs faith rather in the evidence's validity.

quote:

---

The whole purpose of the Scientific Method is to remove faith from the exercise. This is why you have the conditions of openness and reproducibility.

---

Sure, but the fact is, humans conducting the experiment are usually far from flawless.This message has been edited by prophex, 01-13-2005 19:10 AM

---

"For I am the Lord your God, who churns up the sea so that it's waves roar-"
Isaiah 51:15

quote:

---

Sure, but the fact is, humans conducting the experiment are usually far from flawless.

---

That's right - why (lots of different) people don't repeat experiments lots of time I don't know. Hey here's an idea Creationists could reproduce the experiments and catch the errors and the frauds... oh wait...

quote:

---

That's right - why (lots of different) people don't repeat experiments lots of time I don't know. Hey here's an idea Creationists could reproduce the experiments and catch the errors and the frauds... oh wait...

---

Funny, but sort of pointless.

---

"For I am the Lord your God, who churns up the sea so that it's waves roar-"
Isaiah 51:15

I was gone for a couple of days and when I got back, the topic was basically dead, so I didn't bother. Besides, that discussion is probably off-topic anyway. This topic is about putting faith in evolution, not ID. Activity meter. The forum is programmed to monitor the activity of a topic. The more active it is, the higher the bar goes.

quote:

---

I have another topic about the actual theory itself, called "Proving Evolution in the Age of Genetics," in the Biological Evolution forum. But all I've been hearing now is "We have lots of evidence. We have lots of evidence. We have lots of evidence..." I haven't seen much of a capability to think deeper beyond that.

---

Go to TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy and you will find the evidence you seek. None of this evidence has to be taken on faith as all of it is available for everyone to look at, even down to the measurements of fossils to the sequences of DNA. If you don't think that a certain sequence of DNA is found in both humans and chimps, guess what, you can find out for yourself using DNA cloning techniques. If you don't believe that australopithecine fossils have pelvises intermediate between humans and apes, then you can go to a museum and do the measurements yourself.And yes, humans are fallible. This is why scientists explain in great detail how they conducted their experiments. This allows anyone to reconstruct the same exact experiment and compare their results with others. You don't have to have anymore faith in the evidence that supports the theory of evolution than you have to have faith in the reported height of the Empire State Building.

I didn't quote all of Descartes and all of his philosophy, I focused specifically on his views on doubt. What's wrong with his view on doubt? But what is more real? Evolution or the chair?

No, you don't have to have faith in the Evidence. That's why no one relies on one sample. That's why you don't rely on one method. Of course. That's a given. That's why there are procedures established as well as protocols. In addition, that is why the experiment must be duplicated by another team at another site.Fortunately, when it comes to the TOE, we have a record of over 150 years of evidence, experiments, theories, methods and procedures. That's why with over 150 years of challenges, the TOE still stands.No faith required.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There's two main problems I see here with the current argumentation here.1. The mountains of evidence.
Evolutionists claim there is mountains of evidence behind them, but have they really gone through these mountains and ensured that the scientific method has been followed accurately? That there are no two pieces in the evidence which contradict each other? In math, if one theory falls, every theory built on that theory falls, too. How can you be sure that one of the foundations of evolution is true beyond a doubt? Because if the foundation falls, so does the evidence and research built on that foundation.2. Redirecting this topic to an ID-bashing session.
This topic specifically focuses on faith evolution, not ID, so changing the focus on ID would suggest a lack of faith in evolution. In America, many of us consider democracy to be the ultimate government, but as Winston Churchill once said, Replace "government" with the "theory of origin", and "democracy" with "evolution." Is democracy truly the ultimate form of government, or is it simply no more than the best answer at this time? Is evolution truly the ultimate form of the theory of origin, or is it simply no more than the best answer at this time?

Then pick a piece of evidence and show exactly what is wrong with it. Which is exactly why experiments of importance are expected to be replicated. Why the details are made available for review and critism by more than one person.You have a better way? Spell it out in detail.

quote:

---

Evolutionists claim there is mountains of evidence behind them, but have they really gone through these mountains and ensured that the scientific method has been followed accurately? That there are no two pieces in the evidence which contradict each other? In math, if one theory falls, every theory built on that theory falls, too. How can you be sure that one of the foundations of evolution is true beyond a doubt? Because if the foundation falls, so does the evidence and research built on that foundation.

---

What a lot of old rot. forgetting the actual science bits for a moment (Replication of experiments, falsification etc), what do you think creation nutjobs have been looking for all those years?We are going around in circles here - you've got nothing like your chums who have tried to pull this one for the last 100 years or so.Your second example is so poor it's not really worth a response but...Do you not understand that just subbing those words into a quote that you like the look of is a gross simplification of the scientific process and what is occuring in science. You have beaten this "is it just the best idea" rubbish to death and got nowhere with it.If you want to continue with this line, maybe you should show us WHY it's just the "best idea" and a matter of faith.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 20:11 AM

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

It appears you haven't been reading very carefully. If you had you would know the answer we will give.It is the best answer we have at this time. It is also a very, very good well tested answer. There is no reason to expect a different answer in the near future.You have been asked for something other than idle speculation. When you supply that you might gain a small amount of credibility. As of now the suspicion is that you are critisizing something you don't know a lot about.