Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?

The significance and correctness of your conclusion that macroevolution is not proven depends upon how you define "proven". If by proven you mean demonstrated beyond doubt, then macroevolution is not proven, but then neither is any other scientific theory, so your conclusion isn't significant or useful.But if by proven you mean broadly supported by evidence and widely accepted among the relevant community of scientists, then macroevolution is proven, just like many other theories, and your conclusion is incorrect.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-20-2006 10:49 AM

It sounds like you're rejecting induction. If so then you're actually rejecting modern science.Macroevolution is no different than black holes. For practical reasons we can't actually observe and experiment on a black hole in the present moment, but both cosmological observations and theory lend support for the concept. The same is true of macroevolution which, by the way, has been observed for some microorganisms if you're willing to consider speciation an example of macroevolution. All of science is based upon naturalism. Modern biology is not based upon uniformitarianism. Some can, some can't. Geology and cosmology are examples. What we do is make observations in the present and use induction and the assumption of naturalism to project the implication of those observations onto the past.There are theories and ideas in biology that are no different.--Percy

I mean that you don't accept induction as a way of making valid scientific inferences. I accept the scientific method because of it's empirical record of success and not because of any logical imperative. But it does not follow that I therefore reject logic.Do you really reject science? Evolution possesses the same scientific qualities as all other fields of science, so if evolution is atheistic, then aren't also physics, cosmology, geology and so forth?Because your objections apply more broadly than just to evolution, it might be more accurate to speak generally of science instead of just evolution, in which case we would say that just as plumbing and accounting take no stance on the existence of a supernatural deity, neither does science. Ah, but there is such evidence. There is the evidence presented in Darwin's Origin of Species, and there's the confirming evidence of genetic analysis. If a deity actually created all life, he did so in a way completely consistent with macroevolution. Microevolution is defined as evolution within a species. Everything else is macroevolution, including speciation. This would be false because of the evidence I mentioned earlier for observing the effects of macroevolution. The genetic evidence is particularly strong, as the particular genetic differences between related species are a record of macroevolutionary change. The term uniformitarianism is no longer used in the field of geology, except when reciting the history of this science. And I don't believe uniformitarianism was ever a concept within paleontology - perhaps you're thinking of gradualism?I'm not certain why the term uniformitarianism was abandoned, though it could be due to how easily the term is misunderstood. Likely you yourself have in a mind an incorrect definition, possibly believing that it means that all processes proceed at a fixed and predictable rate. What it actually applies to is the range of processes and forces that can affect our planet. Uniformitarianism means that the same processes and forces we see operating on our planet today were the same ones that molded our planet in the past to cast it into its present form, expressed more succintly as, "The present is the key to the past." Yes, I understand. It isn't just evolutionary science that you view as accepted on faith, but much of all other science, too.--Percy

What do violins of heavenly manufacture have to do with homology. Actually, it wasn't just homology I referenced but all of Darwin's evidence from Origin of Species, and the genetic evidence. The theory of evolution postulates that the same natural processes that have been scientifically observed and studied and characterized were responsible for the diversity of life we see today. YEC creationism postulates that God created the world according to the Genesis account through processes that have never been scientifically observed or studied or characterized. Because it resorts to unknown and unseen processes, creationism is unscientific. Science does make a couple significant assumptions, but they're empirically verified. First, it assumes naturalism, meaning that only that which you can detect through the five senses, directly or indirectly, can be studied. Second, it assumes consistency, meaning that the natural laws discovered in one place in the universe apply equally throughout the rest of the universe.This does not by any means invalidate empirically unverified assumptions, such as the existence of a deity, but it does take them out of the realm of science. I'm glad you understand uniformitarianism. Though no longer a term in common use, as a concept it nonetheless has very strong empirical scientific support.--Percy

Replying to your last couple messages: I agree that Jar overstated the case. Doubts about the creation account in the Bible grew gradually over time, but even during the 19th century, the period of greatest rising doubts, a fairly literal interpretation was very common.But Jar's point is still valid. What's interesting about the 19th century Christian European view of creation, especially of naturalists (the most common type of scientist during this period), is that the Biblical creation account was held to be probably true in broad outline but not in detail. That modern geology was explained by the great deluge was accepted by most, but they were less certain of the truth of the particular details, such as the days of creation, and the stories of Adam and Eve and of Cain and Abel, and so forth. It wouldn't have particular bothered many 19th century Christians if it had been scientifically discovered that God actually created the sun and moon before vegetation, rather than after as in the Genesis account. Or if it had been scientifically discovered that it actually only rained for 35 days and 35 nights. The expectation of most during this period is that science would largely confirm the Biblical accounts.But by the time the 20th century was well under way it had become apparent that scientific discovery was coming into ever greater conflict with the Biblical accounts, and it was clear that this process would only continue. While historically there has always been a tense relationship between science and religion, with the formalization of scientific study as an organized field of endeavor and with its unprecedented success in revolutionizing the world both economically and politically (the industrial revolution was just ending), open warfare between science and religion erupted in the United States, culminating in a series of pamphlets titled The Fundamentals that enumerated the unchallengeable beliefs of Christianity.You're correct that there are many and varied Christian faiths, but I think Jar's primary point is that the severely conservative form of Christianity with which you're most familiar has really only been around for less than a hundred years, and that a great many Christian faiths don't hold to these conservative views at all. I'm going have to repeat the concern Coragyps expressed that you seem at times to be fabricating your arguments. A "God the Creator" who, as Christians concede, can do and has done pretty much what he wants (e.g., the creation, the deluge, the sun stopping in the sky, water into wine, feed a multitude with 7 loaves, resurrection of the dead, answering prayers) is not the basis for belief in a rational universe. The opposite is the truth, and it's why religion all over the world, including Christian religion, serves as a front for all forms of frauds and charlatans from faith healers to mediums.In other words, instead of a rational understanding of the universe, religion promotes an irrational and/or miraculous perspective. So no, many historians do not claim religion as the basis for the idea of a comprehensible universe.--Percy