Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?

I agree that the answer is both yes and no, and for similar though not exactly the same reasons as brw.To hold evolutionary theory as some sort of fact is definitely an act of faith. It requires faith in assumptions about the methodology of science, the results of that methodology, and most importantly the completeness of the data to give us a picture of what happened over time for all living entities.Even held tentatively there is still a sense of faith in the same things mentioned above, though one could consider it more along the lines of trust and one understands that there is a limit to that trust and so does not misplace it to the degree of superstition.The greater difference (between evo and creo or id) comes in with regard to how evidence is handled. While there is an element of faith toward the end of evo (how strong the conclusion may be held), there is an element of faith at the beginning of creo and id which must be held and reinforced through to the end. Thus evidence is handled in a deductive, rather than inductive way, which makes it more problematic.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

You make an excellent point and it mirrors something I mentioned to rand in a creo thread. There is a long history of purely deductive mechanisms tied to wholly religious dogma, failing to deliver useful results. On the other hand inductive mechanisms tied to no conclusive dogma, has a long history of producing useful results.So in this case I agree that I'd place more trust in the inductive system, rather than the deductive system. And of course those that place trust in the latter system are doing so on faith, rather than "reason".My explanation was not so much discussing the personal level, but the state of the science in and of itself.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)