Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

So, how did evolution get started? Seems like YEC had centuries of a head start. What the heck did they do with it? This only shows you how bad the alternative(s) to evolution is(are) ...

Accept it as what?

I know what his point was, and I take issue with the example: anarchy isn't necessarily horrible ... it takes educated people with a clear understanding of the moral imperatives. most of the day to day events that people are involved in are really anarchy in action and not the result of any governmental form or other.you could say that democracy enables anarchy to be more effective.a better example would be a choice between a secular dictatorship and a theistic monopoly.heh.

---

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

Please watch the topic drift!Drift??! More like roaring cataract.

To "objective 'truth' " of course. But how do we approximate this objedtive truth as best as we can?The best method we have to date is the process that we adopt for science. If you have a better one please describe it.

No doubt. And they did it because they're worshipping an idol (if I may use their theology). The idol is an inerrant Bible.

OK, my take on the big question I accept evolution as the current best answer to the observed (objective) evidence (truth), especially in comparison to other theories on their ability to explain the evidence.Or in other words, I accept that change will occur in the theories involved, but that the current ones are the best ones available at this time.One could also argue that it is a lack of valid competing theories that makes the acceptance seem stronger.

---

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

quote:

---

Do we accept evolution by comparing it to objective truth, or by comparing it to other theories? The answer is important in determining the role of faith in evolution.

---

Might as well answer so you know where all of us stand.We accept evolution because of how it compares to objective reality. We accept evolution over other theories because evolution is a complete explanation of the objective evidence we have at hand. This acceptance is tentative because not all evidence has yet been discovered.

I'd never thought of it like that. It's a great insight - thanks for sharing it.

---

Confused ? You will be...

Of course it was recognised that it would be difficult to challenge Newtonian Mechanics. And that's because it was so successful in explaining what was observed - and it SHOULD be difficult to challenge a good theory. We don't want to throw out a theory that actually works for somebody's partly-developed speculation that offers no benefits at all.That doesn't change the fact that Einstein's challenge rapidly succeeded - without the special considerations you demand.Finally you say that accpeting the theory with the best evidential support is "closed-minded". Well obviously it is not since it is a position that is receptive to evidence and not based on a desire to cling to one particular position.If it should turn out that evolution DID have serious problems then the thing to do is to accept it provisionally (because it still does better than any current rivals) while looking into those problems. Not, as the ID people would do, declaring that we should jump to the conclsuon of ID. And that is what happens - the New Synthesis started by trying to reconcile Mendelian Genetics with the then-current theory of evolution. It was thought that the two were incompatible - yet it turned out that not only were they compatible but genetics solved a long-standing problem in evolutionary theory. It also created the field of Population Genetics.And scientists are going on working. Evo-Devo studies could spark a "Newer Synthesis" - the potential is there. The ID movement has nothing comparable. If they were really scientific then they should stop spending large sums of money on PR and instead start financing real research. But they won't.

quote:

---

The idol is an inerrant Bible.

---

Sadly not even that. They will pay lip service to the Bible but have no qualms about twisting and misrepresenting it to support their beleifs.

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

Descartes system of doubts is not particularly rigorous, he fails to take it to it's logical conclusions and unlike Kant fails to explore the idea in it's own right as opposed to simply using it as a springboard for later works. That's missing the point. I don't have to have faith specifically in Evolution, because it is empirically demonstratable from the apparent facts observable in the world. That I consider those facts to be actual takes faith, but that is all.

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.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.I don't think many would argue that most people who believe in evolution have "faith" in it by the first definition.The second through sixth definitions most definitly should not constitute a part of anyone's acceptence of a scientific theory.If what is being argued is that it takes faith (definition 2) to accept evolution then that is absurdly false due to the fact that scientific theories are entirely based on material evidence. It is up to the people arguing for the postive to show what part of the TOE fails to use logic, material evidence in order to consitute faith by any other than the first definition.