Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?

quote:

---

In other words, the ones that confirm a finding when it is announced are the ones that specialize in that particular field. Specialists in other fields have to take their words for it. It's called having faith, or trust, depending on what you do for a living, in the scientific community.

---

Just because there are many specialties, sub-specialties, sub-sub- specialties, and so on within science, it does not mean theat there is not a LARGE amount of interdisciplinary work going on.For example, my husband got his undergrad degree in Biopsychology, did some graduate work in Molecular Neurobiology, then moved on to study attention, visual perception and cognition, and working memory and aging. Now he is doing post-doctoral work in learning and congnition.So, he went all the way from the micro-level, working with individual neurons, to the macro-level, working with people doing tasks and looking at both FMRI and behavioral data.This is no different anywhere else in science.

quote:

---

A lot of the evidence seems circumstantial to me--except for the fossils.

---

...and the genetics.

quote:

---

If a diety created life, how would you expect it to look.

---

It would depend upon the diety.Right now it looks as though the diety doesn't know what he's doing most of the time.

quote:

---

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.

---

There is a thread in which I am asking for definitions of "kind" that I just started which I would be delighted for you to join.

quote:

---

I can list dozens of dating methods that point to a young earth...it's just scientists don't use those.

---

Excellent.There are many, many threads in the Dates and Dating forum in which you can list these dozens of methods that scientists don't use.I look forward to learning about them.

quote:

---

I just meant that the evidence seems to be of a kind in which we say, if evolution is true, such-and-such has to be the case. Such-and-such is in fact the case. But this "such-and-such" is not precise enough to be called "predictive" exactly.

---

Well, it seems as though you are rejecting inference.Since nearly all science is conducted through inference, that would be a problem.

quote:

---

It's not like proving the theory of relativity by calculating where a heavenly body should be at a given point in time according to relativity calculations, and then that heavenly body shows up right at the predicted time--which I heard was done. It's not that type of evidence.

---

The correct analogy would be more along the lines of predicting exactly where, when, and how a given asteroid is going to break up, and also predicting exactly how many pieces it is going to break up into, and what each particle's molecular structure is, and which of them is going to land on Earth, and where.Etc.

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?

quote:

---

The major problem with your assertion is that the Creationist model can also be said to be broadly supported by evidence. We all have the same evidence, it's just a matter of interpretation based on presuppositions.

---

OK, then can you list, say, half a dozen predictions of this Creationist model that were made, tested, and were supported by the evidence?