Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?

Sorry for the delayed response...I was put on timeout by the admin staff. Somewhere Serling smiles.You seem to use the term "faith" to mean belief counter to the evidence. I take faith to mean belief based on logical evidence, but lacking empirical truth. I think my use of the term faith actually parallels quite closely what you describe when you list evidences that lead toward a conclusion. I think it's largely a matter of semantics. If you define "faith" as a belief that cannot be rationally proven, then macroevolution does indeed require faith. Although there is a large quantity of supporting evidence (when viewed from an evolutionary viewpoint), it is only rationally supported and not rationally proven. So, according to the traditional definition of faith, we have a fit.In other words, our argument actually seems to be over what "faith" means, not if it's required to accept macroevolution. Belief without proof is faith. Belief, even with strong supporting evidence, is still faith when proof is not available.You seem to think that verification in a scientific sense is the same as truth. Verification in a scientific sense is not proof, so changing my quote to read verification rather than proof is disingeneous. From wikipedia:"Scientific method does not aim to give an ultimate answer. Its iterative and recursive nature implies that it will never come to an end, so any answer it gives is provisional. Hence it cannot prove or verify anything in a strong sense. However, if a theory passed many experimental tests without being disproved, it is usually considered superior to any theory that has not yet been put to a test."The most you could ever assert about macroevolution, therefore, is that it is the superior scientfic model available at this time. It's not, however, proven.Further, by arguing that your computer may not be on your desk because you could be hallucinating or imagining it, undermines your whole argument. Either there is objective reality or there is not (not to mention, hallucination could be falsified by having other people view the computer). If not, then any logical evidence you provide for macroevolution similarly could be false. The fossil record could be a hallucination, for instance. Science would be pointless if it didn't start with the assumption that reality exists.

I agree with your premise, but I don't think macroevolution can even be proven the the extent that other scientific theories can. I think the distinction is the timeframe involved. Gravity, for instance, is active in the present moment and can therefore be evaluated and experimented against. With macroevolution, you can point to current microevolutionary evidence that can be evaluated and experimented against, but the assumption must be made that these lower level changes lead to larger level ones. Granted, I see the logic in assuming that since these diverse organisms exist these changes must have occured. However, that is based on an assumption of naturalism and uniformitarianism. I don't think the analogy to other unprovable theories is valid, therefore, because most theories can be evaluated in the present time. Those that can't, I would say, dealve into a little scientific philosophy.

I understand your point, but you're misunderstanding my argument I think.Microevolution can be evaluated in the present...things change, new species are resultant. However, you can't even know for sure that changes above the species level ever occured, let alone evaluate against them. It only makes sense if you start with the assumption that they did occur. If you start with the assumption, for instance, that God made distinct kinds that are capable of adaptation to the environment in order to survive...there would be no reason to assume that this adaptation would change a whale into a cow for instance, because the cow would have always been there.It all comes down to a priori assumptions. You don't beleive that God created the distinct animals, therefore logic forces you to believe that macroevolutionary changes do occur. Starting from my base, it isn't logically necessary for macroevolution to have occured.Until you've witnessed a whale becoming a cow, it's just an assumption that it occured. Gravity is a poor example because it's laws are binding in the current timeframe. If you throw up a ball, you will always witness it fall back down to earth...which you can evaluate.You may believe that you are evaluating macroevolution, but the fact is only microevolution can be evaluated against. Microevolution is a scientific theory ( a very good one at that), and macroevolution is scientific philosophy based on the theory of microevolution.Theoretical physics is a field of change. Old theories are discarded when new evidence shows they are in error. I'd agree with this comparison to macroevolution. The question is, will you be willing to abandon it for another theory when the evidence shows it may be in error?

I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest I am rejecting induction. I don't question that it's used in the scientific method...I wouldn't suggest that the concept doesn't exist...and I'm pretty sure all of the letters that make up the word are real also. I'd also agree with your inference that induction is a major assumption.The philosopher Hume addressed causality and induction in terms of the scientific method and suggested these were believed by blind faith alone. Bertrand Russell agreed with this stance. It follows then, that if I reject science you reject logic.In truth, these assumptions were tied hand-in-hand to the belief in the God of the bible. According to Loren Eisley, a scientific historian:”The philosophy of experimental science . began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’In fact, CS Lewis suggested that our own logicall process are suspect if athiestic evolution were the way of things:”If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents”the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts”i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy”are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.’I think the problem really comes down to your failure to objectively see my point of view. I understand your views and how they are logical given a certain set of assumptions. If you start with the assumption that God created distinct "kinds" of animals, there is no evidence to suggest macroevolutionary changes have occured. What we see are changes within species..and even speciation (no I wouldn't accept this as an evidence of macroevolution since it is defined as changes above the level of species).With black holes we have the same scenario...we can observe their effects ( X-ray emission from X-ray binaries and active galactic nuclei, etc...)in the present time. Concerning evolution, we can only observe the effects of microevolution, that is changes at or below the species level. This should be pretty intuitive given the fact that even intellectually honest evolutionists would admit it.I'll accept your premise that biology isn't directly based upon uniformitarianism. However, surely you would admit that evolutionary biology is tied closely to geology and paleontology which are both built upon this assumption. In fact, those fields would be your best place to look if you wanted to try and prove macroevolution (ie. fossil record). Granted, I don't think the proof is there.Interesting that you mention assumptions and projecting implications in a thread wherein you're trying to convince me that evolutionary theory doesn't require faith. And for the record, I personally am skeptical of many of the claims of both geology and cosmology. I am a YEC after all and certainly don't believe in millions of years and the big bang :-)

I still don't see any evidence to suggest that macroevolution doesn't require faith even when faith is defined as a belief that lacks independent verification. You don't seem to have the ability to seperate micro from macro. It isn't valid to simply suggest that because speciation occurs and animals mutate and change, that they must change on the level of dino's to birds...the evidence just isn't there. Sure, birds exist..but what if there were created as birds in the beginning.If you're convinced that macroevolution is an historical fact (nice use of an before 'H' btw), then it's apparant to me that you'll never objectively entertain the notion of other possibilities. This is the sort of paradigm paralysis that leads to the omission of new discoveries. If you assume the theory to be true...how, as a scientist, can you objectively evaluate it? (Not suggesting you are or aren't a scientist...just talking about "the" evolutionary scientist in general).I agree that in a Cartesian sense, nothing can be proven. I don't agree that there is a preponderance of evidence for macroevolution as to remove any reasonable doubt, however. You mention the plethera of indepent tests that verify that macroevolution has occured without listing any. Let's discuss these independent verifications.

If that is the point, then our discussion should be over because I agree completely with that statement. The problem is you can only infer the verification you seek when you start out with a given set of assumptions. Your faith shapes your worldview..whether it be a Christian or athiestic one. It's a problem of seperating the evidence from the theory. For instance, have you ever spent any time trying to fit the evidence into another theory (something required of jurists in a murder trial).Reasonable doubt is the key phrase. I've seen no evidence to remove it as of yet.

When you say the YEC position has been falsified, I'm certain you refer to a creationist model that I don't. If you'd like to start a topic I'd be happy to discuss.If religion is based on faith, science is based on assumptions...I say 6 of one half-dozen of the other.

If a diety created life, how would you expect it to look. The fact that your interpretation of the design of things leads you to believe that evolution is fact has no bearing on what God's design would look like. I would, for instance, expect homology within many organisms if they all had a common creator...viola!Of course, you'd turn around and say this evidence supports evolution. Same evidence, different interpretation. All of the evidence you put forth could be equally interpreted in a creationist framework. If something can be equally applied to 2 theories, it isn't valid to suggest it verifies one of them.For instance, you state that the particular genetic differences between related species are a record of macroevolutionary change. Sure, that's possible. But, again, if God created distinct "kinds" (closer to order or family I would guess) that had the ability to adapt to their environment for survival...this evidence would also fit in that framework. It shows adaptation, but doesn't provide proof of a change from the bird "kind" to the dinosaur "kind". You HAVE to make an assumption to even begin interpreting. Faith and worldview are inseperable.I do understand uniformitarianism to mean what you stated. You left out the Uniformitarianism with a capital U though ( religious philosophy)...no point in leaving any out. In all seriousness, I do understand the terms (from a scientific standpoint) because I've actually spent time researching theories opposing mine.

Again...you can only draw conlusions and assumptions from evidence that the earth is not young. I can list dozens of dating methods that point to a young earth...it's just scientists don't use those. It's interesting that the evos are allowed to stray off topic but not I. When I want to talk about dating methods I'll meander over yonder.

I won't ask you to give me evidence of YEC assumptions that are in big trouble, but I'm certain your YEC assumptions aren't what mine would be to begin with. It's hard to ridicule what someone believes when you don't know what that even is. I'll make time to get to a YEC topic, or set one up if there isn't one....but this topic is interesting to me at the moment.

Hey...an objective thinker...gotta love it.

I'm not sure if you're goal was to shock me with this information. But trust me, I'm just as aware of the history of old ages as you are...no need to enlighten me there. The problem is, the discoveries were based on assumptions that may prove to not be true. Faith was tested at that time, I don't question that. What I question is your absolute statement of fact regarding interpretation of evidence.I wouldn't compromise with the belief in "special creation". I believe in the single 6 day creation event that you mention.
I'll have to go to a YEC thread to defend this position...I don't want to draw the ire of the admins.The fact is, there are a large group of scientists that are wrong on origins one way or the other. Many PHD scientists, in all specialties, exist that believe in the literal creation account. A scientists interpretation doesn't create fact...some "faith" or "assumption" or whathaveyou is required.

So you honestly doubt evolution? If not, your statement is meaningless.

The genesis account, in my opinion, is a literal history...but the text, just like the scientific evidence for evolution is open to interpretation. I'm suggesting that we have different interpretations in this area.I agree with the first part of your position, but not the second (huge surprise I know). I still hold to the position that microevolution is the only portion of evolution that can be held to verification.I'm not sure if discussing the evidence you reference is off topic, but I suspect it's only direct evidence for microevolution and indirect evidence for macro. It honestly seems to me as though evolutionists can't seperate the 2 or at least can't admit that 1 doesn't prove the other.

The examples you list draw doubt to specifics, but not to the underlying assumptions. You simply assume that life arose naturally and therefore since animals change..even to new species, that they must change orders and families too. No facts support this stance.