Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

In your critical analysis of my analogy, you seem to miss the main point. I will simply ask you for the answer to this question: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.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-13-2005 22:31 AM

Allright, so it's established that comparing evolution to other theories does not justify its scientific worth. It must be compared to objective reality, 1. Well, I don't want to get too much into evidence, and turn this topic into one big evidence wars (that's what this forum does a lot, so it'd be like concentrating all that effort into one topic). But at least I'll post the five problems that are the "most troublesome to evolutionary theory."
http://www.trueorigins.org/isakrbtl.asp#theory

quote:

---

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

---

It's take faith to transcend any problems that are presented. And these problems don't only happen in evolution. Right now, our world is goverened by two sets of laws: Newtonian mechanics and quantum physics. It can't be possible to live by two different sets, so this is another example of how science is incomplete.2. Evolution is more like a continuum, so it would totally change our perception of animals. The current method of classification (kindom-phylum-order-class-family-genus-species) is commonly used today in textbooks. Evolution would imply that this is false. There are no distinct classes of animals. Just a continuum of different organisms.3. Evolution may not be as logical in the future. As crashfrog writes

quote:

---

At one time, the Earth was believed by many to be flat. That was the best explanation they had avaliable. I'm sure at some point our current theory of evolution will seem as untenable as a flat earth seems today.

---

We were once convinced that the Earth was flat. We were wrong.
We were once convinced of a geocentric view. We were wrong.
We were once convinced that everything was described by Newtonian mechanics. We were wrong.
Evolution may seem so prominent right now, but we must not forget that is only for this day, and not the next.So is evolution really the end-all be-all theory, or is just another theory? How much faith (faith which transcends the current limits and problems of evolution) should we put in evolution as the right road to take in describing our life? For when you have faith in evolution, you inevitably will focus your efforts on proving that which you have faith in.

I'm not trying to focus on evidence as much, which is why I'm not going to go for high quality stuff. I said those five bits were the most troublesome, meaning they may not necessarily disprove evolution, but they generate most of the problems for evolution.

---

But getting back to the main subject, you say that evolution is not truth. But the way you ("you" doesn't necessarily mean Percy) treat it, and how it is talked up so much with all of that evidence, means you are putting some sort of faith in it. That the scientific method has been followed perfectly. That the results haven't been creatively interpretted. It seems that evolutionists are quick to point out flaws in creationism and how they do this, but certainly creationists aren't the only ones who do this.Look at what has happened recently. A federal judge yesterday has banned the following sticker from being put on textbook stickers.

quote:

---

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

---

Now it may not be politically correct in relation to fact vs theory, but nitpicking aside, what is wrong with this sticker? And if these kind of stickers can get banned, then how does that affect this perceived scientific monopoly on evolution?You seem to advocate an ideal utopia where man perfectly iterates the scientific method, and where you can have so many experts behind you. But experts can disagree, and man is not perfect, so on what do you further justify your claims?I think Descartes is an excellent philosopher in relation to doubt, because he was able to go so deep in doubt. Some would disagree to the conclusions which he arrived after he doubted everything, but at least he tried to doubt everything. And that gave him an enlightened state of sorts. In fact in his second meditation (the one after he doubted everything), he starts by mentioning the sheer power of his doubts

quote:

---

The Meditation of yesterday filled my mind with so many doubts that it is no longer in my power to forget them. And yet I do not see in what matter I can resolve them; and, just as if I had all of a sudden fallen into very deep water, I am so disconcerted that I can neither make certain of setting my feet on the bottom, not can I swim and so support muself on the surface.

---

Noone's asking you to go as far as Descarates did, but a lesson can certainly be learned from his use of doubt.

In your overzealous dedication to evidence, I think you've missed something important:Who developed the scientific method? Man.
Who first developed the theory of evolution? Man.
Who conducted the experiments to support evolution? Man.
Who uses the scientific method? Man.
Who interprets the results of an experiment? Man.
...? Man.
...? Man.
...? Man.What does evolution put its faith in? Man.

---

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
If a mathematical theory falls, any theory built upon it will fall.
A house is only as strong as its foundation.
...
Evolution is only as reliable as man is.

The answer to how much faith you have in evolution is how much faith you have in man. That would differ in some people (especially optomists vs pessimists).Also, I'd like to pick out something else you said: No evidence? None? Zero? Didn't your English teach tell you to never use absolutes? I think someone's showing a pretty obvious bias.*a cookie to anyone who can pick out the inherent paradox in my statement

Where did I say that evolutionists are optimists and YECs are pessimists? A cookie to you. I was well aware of that. My English teacher once said that in a debate class (he has that sort of sense of humor), and I was the only one listening who picked up the subtle joke. It's just like how paper doesn't grow on trees... Nice job of using stereotypes. Actually, you are using deductive reasoning here, so you can't quite conclusively prove that statement.

Oops, I didn't see this message earlier. No wonder I was confused when Percy said "sidelined has the most appropiate response."Well, first off, you're attempting to put creation on the same ground as evolution, but that doesn't put evolution on a higher level at all. This topic is about believing evolution, not creation. Nonetheless, I've learned that you just can't seem to realize this, so I'll appease you with a response. Well if the Bible is open to many different interpretations, then so is processes in nature. Your logic here is self-destructive and contradictory. Well, the second statement offers the explanation to the first, but as for the explanation to the second statment, each man chooses for himself whether to have the faith to believe that God inspired the scriptures. Whereas in evolution, each man chooses for himself whether to have faith to believe that man accurately explains our world through evolution. The key to interpretting the Scriptures is the Holy Spirit. So man must have faith that the Holy Spirit will show him the truth in Scripture. Actually, this is a misguided statement. The NT focuses specifically on living by grace, not by the law. Actually, man puts faith in God. That He was behind the Bible, not man. That He will not lead him astray.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-16-2005 18:22 AM

Logically if other interpretations of processes in nature are false, then other interpretations of the Bible are false. Regardless, though, the aforementioned statement is not based off of my logic, but yours.That point aside, however, in religion people ultimately put their faith in God. In evolution people ultimately put their faith in man.

The Catholic church is trying to change their views so evolution is compatible with God. They still want to have faith in God, but by trying to make the Bible "fit" with evolution, they also put their faith in man. Just like it's possible to doubt evolution, it's possible to doubt God (and thus make him compatible with evolution)

Well, I must be honest to say that I'm ambivalent towards Catholicism (maybe because I'm Lutheran). When you start relying on yourself to interpret the Bible, and not the Holy Spirit, you put less of your faith in God and more in man (specifically yourself). Perhaps it would be more accurate to say religion should ultimately put their faith in God.

Well, I don't take too kindly to your stereotyping of faith, but putting that aside, there have been times when bridges have collapsed and when planes have crashed (TWA Flight 800, anyone). Although man makes bridges and airplanes as secure as possible, the situation can still take a turn for the worse. Likewise, one day some catastrophic anomaly in evolution may one day kill the theory. The history of mankind shows that nothing is set in stone. I'm saying that if alternatives to evolution can be disproved, then so can alternative views of the Bible. It's a two-way street here.

Don't get me started with the problems of dating methods. Or on the "bad" dates that were thrown out. Or how there should've been more salt water in the Earth given an evolutionary timeframe. etc.The debate is far from over.

All I'm saying is that your claim is debatable. I didn't want to get into specifics, but whenever I don't get into specifics, I'm called for a lack of evidence. When I give some examples for support, I'm called for being off-topic. The point of those examples isn't to debate dating, it's to establish the potential for dating to be debateable.

I'm just calling up some examples to show that dating is debatable. You didn't cover the other examples, you just covered that one to nitpick. In that post, I was trying to establish that the dating claim was debatable. On a more general note, I'm trying to imply that evolution requires putting your faith in man (and there's a great philosophical debate over whether the nature of man is good or evil).There was once a foreign exchange student who was excellent at debate at our school. English was his 4th or 5th language, but once at the beginning of his speech, he explained that English was his 4th or 5th language and then corrected every pronounciation error of the previous speaker. But then, after that, he actually attacked what the previous speaker said.The lesson being here is that you shouldn't post just to nitpick and just look at the mistake in one section of my post, while ignoring the general message put forth in the rest of my post.

Yes, and I gave some examples of why dating is debatable. But then, RAZD called me for being off-topic. If I don't give specifics, I get called for lack of evidence. It feels like the rules are being twisted so I can't accomplish much at all without being called for something. Yes, the devil is in the details, and there are a lot of details that still must be resolved. Until then, it is necessary to put faith in evolution.