Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?

There is one big difference between the datign methods that show an old earth vs the dating methods that show a young earth.The dating methods that show a young earth have been falisfied, repeatedly.That is not so with the dating methods that show an old earth. The various different methods strengthen and confirm each other.

Jar, I must apologize for getting back to you so late. The price of sleep for me has skyrocketed since I last posted. It is now a scarcity I can no longer afford with ease.

quote:

---

It's not a matter that so many disciplines are required to confirm the theory. That's not the case at all.

---

Perhaps that was the case back in the 18th century, but in modern science every field is linked in some way and that they must reinforce each other for them to be valid.One of the major fact that could either overwhelmingly confirm the theory of evolution or blow it out of the water is the apparent age of the Earth as well as the solar system. In order to have enough "positive" mutations, for lack of a better word, for all the diversification required, the age of the earth must be pretty old, or at least older than the 6,000 year age proposed by creationists. Geology confirmed this. Astronomy further confirmed that the solar system was sufficiently old enough for most of the solar debris to have either been vacuumed up by the planets or settled into stationary orbits.But suppose the theory of evolution have overwhelming biological evidence but then geologists as well as astronomers both confirm that everything was only 6,000 years old. Would biologists continue to believe that evolution was the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth or would they go back to the drawing board and figure out if anything went wrong along the way?

quote:

---

The thing that adds overwhelming weight to the TOE is that every discipline DOES support it. It was well supported with the publication of Origin of the Species. Since then new technologies have been developed.

---

But would you agree that not all biologists have the kind of mastery over astrophysics, geology, or chemistry as astrophysicists, geologists, or chemists? If you answer yes, then there is some degree of faith in the scientific community to accept that, yes, geology, astronomy, etc. do support the theory.

quote:

---

In 2000 years not one supporting fact, evidence or technology has come along to support ID or Creationism.

---

Of course, there have been evidence that supported ID and creationism in the past 2000 years. Perhaps not any legitimate evidence in the last half century or so, but there were plenty before that.To holmes:

quote:

---

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.

---

While I partially agree with this statement, I'm not sure I can go along with it completely. The methodology of science is based mainly on the assumption that we live in a consistent universe, that if we repeat exactly what we did before we should get the same result again and again. Now, whether you would call this assumption faith or trust is up for debate. Personally, since I have repeatedly observed consistency all my life, I tend to see it as more of a trust than faith.The other thing is I don't believe the case is closed. Yes, we do consistently face the incompleteness of the data to adequately give us the whole picture. This is why everything in science is open-ended. Every theory is subject to change should there emerge new data that tell us a different story than before, like the utraviolet catastrophe.To SuperNintendo Chalmers:

quote:

---

Our deveopers don't have know how transistors work or about electron potential wells to make our products work.

---

I don't think this is a fair comparason, and I'll tell you why.

quote:

---

Similarly, things like anti-biotics just work! Which should be proof enough that evolution is solid.

---

Developers make money whether your explanation of how the transistors work is right or not as long as the transistors work. Yes, anti-biotics work, but in science people should care whether the explanation to how it work is correct or not.

Garrett,

quote:

---

I can list dozens of dating methods that point to a young earth...

---

I have been scanning this thread carefully looking for a list of the dating methods you mentioned but haven't been able to find it. Would you please either point to me the post you gave the list or repeat it for me?Thanks in advance.

Not at all. They do not have to be linked. As you point out, it was entirely possible that one or another of the independent areas of study might have falsified evolution.But guess what? They didn't. Each new technology, each new field of endevour confirmed the TOE. Doesn't matter. An indepth knowledge may be needed to understand the intricacies of something like physics or biology or cosmology, but the evidence for Evolution is so totally overwhelming that no faith is involved. For example, you mentioned the age of the universe. Simply going out at night, and again ayt mid day, provides more than enough evidence to completely falsify a Young Earth position. I have heard this alleged many times however no one has ever been able to bring any examples forward that withstood even a cursory examination.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, I guess everything I wanted to say have been said about the topic.

quote:

---

I have heard this alleged many times however no one has ever been able to bring any examples forward that withstood even a cursory examination.

---

The bubonic plague was a pretty convincing evidence that the world was governed by supernatural forces. Saint Januarius' blood in the holy vile was overwhelming evidence that, again, everything was governed by supernatural forces. But the most overwhelming evidence for creationism was the bible, which almost everyone believed to be real historical records of the origin of all things.

Do you mean that to the people at the time saw those things as evidence for Creationism? If so, then I would certainly agree.And is it possible that we will someday learn something that will totally change our current understanding in biology, geology, cosmology, evolution or any other area? I'd say that's very likely and hope I get to see many more wonders. But none of those will bring back that Old Time Religion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar,

quote:

---

But none of those will bring back that Old Time Religion.

---

From the beginning of the bronze age to now, there had been at least one instance of "collapse" of major civilizations resulting in the civilized world taking a great leap backward toward barbarism. In that instance, almost overnight people lost much of human reason and what came very close to scientific thought and reverted back to the age of constant fear of the supernatural.The dark ages was not the only instance when almost every acheivement made by people of the previous periods, mainly the helenistic and classical ages, was lost. The romans destroyed untold number of treasures during their conquest of the known world, throwing many civilizations back to the stone age. The golden hordes almost destroyed cvilization as people knew, both in the east and west.In all of these instances, the aftermath was always some religious sect taking over. Even the Bolshevik revolution in Russia ultimately resulted in a type of theocracy more than communism.If history have taught me one thing is that there will certainly be more "collapses" of civilization in the future, and after everyone of them people will revert back to believing what we today would consider crackpot ideas.What you call old time religion may be your grandchildren's popular culture.

That certainly could be true. But it has nothing to do with the reality. The Universe will still be old.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i wouldn't call it all fear, if we are talking "pagan" beliefs, people tended to take up gods and goddesses that they knew, from times before, it was mostly like a conforting blanket during a huge storm i would agree with this, but it won't accure like it did in ages past, theres too much of a world society now. to send the world back to the dark ages we would have to destroy just about everyone. Rome absorbed just about every large society in most of europe, so when it collapsed it took everything downas for our religions becoming our grandchildrens popculture, well i would say that it would take at least one thousand years, and contempt over the religion to make people reduce it to myths (not that people don't do that now) are you meaning such as we treat greek religions?This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-22-2006 01:21 AM

Jar,

quote:

---

That certainly could be true. But it has nothing to do with the reality. The Universe will still be old.

---

While truth may be seperate from the majority belief, and you can either agree or disagree with this statement... I don't feel like going too deep into this right now, we cannot simply ignore the human factor in this. When push comes to horrendous torture, even you are going to admit that the earth was in fact flat.

quote:

---

i wouldn't call it all fear, if we are talking "pagan" beliefs, people tended to take up gods and goddesses that they knew, from times before, it was mostly like a conforting blanket during a huge storm

---

We can call it whatever we like, but everytime there is a void in people's faith (for example, people today actually have more faith in our civilization than their own religion), religion seems to be always the best candidate to fill up that void. It brings a quick security to your life as well as unity to your community. And I am not saying that it is bad that religion always acts as a comforting blanket during a huge storm. What I'm trying to point out is that, because of the fact that religion tend to fill up the vacuum of power, even when the storm is over, like every self-preserving entity that we know of, it will still try to impose itself onto people's lives.

quote:

---

i would agree with this, but it won't accure like it did in ages past, theres too much of a world society now. to send the world back to the dark ages we would have to destroy just about everyone. Rome absorbed just about every large society in most of europe, so when it collapsed it took everything down

---

Not necessarily. All it takes is a minor nuclear war, some ambitious people that first would appear to be saviors but turn out to be power hungry sons of bitches, and doomsaying fundamentalists. The religious zealots would probably be the true saviors of the people from the warlords, which is how they will have a strong grib on people afterward.I'm actually not sure what I'm talking about since it's all speculation.

quote:

---

as for our religions becoming our grandchildrens popculture, well i would say that it would take at least one thousand years, and contempt over the religion to make people reduce it to myths (not that people don't do that now) are you meaning such as we treat greek religions?

---

Again, all I can do is speculate, and we are somewhat pushing the limit of my knowledge on this matter. But I do think, again from history, that current popular religions will one day go belly up only to be replaced by newer religions. Just as the common christian today who thinks that the idea of a group of supernatural beings residing on mount olympus is as rediculous as santa claus on the north pole, future zealots may think that the idea of an all powerful god who has a son who is one in the same as the god is as rediculous as _________(make up your own future fairy tale figure here).

quote:

---

I still hold to the position that microevolution is the only portion of evolution that can be held to verification.

---

If you cannot verify the height, build, hair and eye color, and name of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother, does that mean it is likely that you didn't have one?

to which blueredwhite responded: For me it would not take horrendous torture, probably more like mild discomfort. But what does that have to do with the topic of this thread beyond supporting the initial assertion that science in general and evolution in particular are not faith based while religion is?Science is not democratic. It does not take a poll and decide which theories are most popular. In fact it is exactly the opposite. Science is based on doubt, not faith. For a theory to gain acceptance, it must first pass the test of continuing doubt. This is true of every scientific theory. And frankly, there have been few theories put forward in science that have been challenged more than the TOE or withstood as much doubt.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Garrett,

quote:

---

I can list dozens of dating methods that point to a young earth...

---

I have been scanning this thread carefully looking for a list of the dating methods you mentioned but haven't been able to find it. Would you please either point to me the post you gave the list or repeat it for me?Thanks in advance. Gotta stop this. That is too far OT for this thread. If he presents something it will have to be over in the Dates and Dating forum.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-23-2006 07:02 PM

I suppose by "genetic evidence" for evolution is meant the DNA samples of different living species. So we find out that humans are 97% similar in their genotype to chimpanzees. And then I supposed they've gone on from there and shown man is related to other primates also, but not quite as closely. Then you could move from primates to whatever the next higher level is, and in all these cases you will find the genetic similarities gradually diminishing the further up you get taxonomically. I guess that's the way it works.But what does this tell us? I think the idea is, if evolution is true, then the above scenario must be the case. The above scenario is in fact the case. It does not follow from this that evolution is necessarily true. What this DNA evidence does is eliminate a possible falsification.

Well, naturally. An ominpotent creator God could have specially created us 6,000 years ago and did so in a way that would be consistent with evolution.Also, Greg Matthews (from the OP) isn't guilty. God specially created an identical twin with the same DNA/fingerprints etc, had him steal Greg's car, commit the murder, speed back to Greg's house dump the weapon and then God made the evil twin mysteriously vanish. Or perhaps God took the simple option and specially created all the evidence to implicate Greg.Either way, the point of this thread is that believing Greg is the killer requires less faith than the converse. Likewise, a lot more faith is required to deny evolution than to accept it.As best as is possible we can verify the conclusion of evolution, so under the definition set out in the OP, it does not require faith, whereas omnipotent beings do require faith.