Creation is based on evidence as well. (other than the Bible) but when you look at the evidence, do you not disagree with the "conclusion" come to by creationists?
It's not even a matter of disagreeing with their conclusions - I've
never seen
any objective evidence proposed in favor of Creationism. I'd very much appreciate it if you started another thread if you actually have some.
I
have seem a great many arguments that purport to show how Creationism is based on evidence, but when it came down to it, the Creationists reverted to quoting the Bible rather than following evidence. Their arguemnts typically consisted of arguments from ignorance, drastic leaps in logic, and outright falsehoods based entirely on their interpretation of the Bible rather than any objective examination of observable evidence.
But then, even if someone examines evidence and says "this evidence supports Creationisn," then that person is not basing their belief on faith (assuming their interpretation of the evidence is not
also based solely on their interpretation of the Bible). That person's beliefs would in fact be based on evidence and not faith...they would simply be wrong.
I don't claim that everyone
I disagree with is basing their opinions on faith. I make that claim only when a person fails to support their position with evidence. In cases of disagreement where both sides back up their assertions with objective evidence, one or both parties are simply
wrong to varying degrees in their interpretation.
Again, faith is a belief not based on evidence. That doesn't mean that all beliefs that are not based on faith are
correct. Neither does it mean that all
incorrect beliefs are based on faith. This may in fact be the root cause for people who equate science and faith - they see that science is considered "correct" becasue it is based on evidence, while faith is considered "wrong" becasue it is not, and they seek to equate the two so that faith can be "correct." But science isn't really about "correct vs incorrect." It's about
accuracy.
The same applies here.. The evidence is there.. it is real, but the interpretations of what it means is based on ones faith in their world view. I see something different than you when I look at the same evidence you have for evolution.
Which means that one of us in
incorrect in our interpretation of that evidence, but neither of our beliefs are based on faith...unless your interpretation of the evidence is defined
not by the evidence alone but rather by your interpretation of a religious text.
The "world view" of the scientist is not based on faith, either antiLIE. Naturalistic explanations with a high degree of accuracy have been found for nearly every phenomenon we have encountered. It is a
reasonable logical inference from that fact to say that it is likely that naturalistic explanations exist for other phenomenon. If a naturalistic explanation is found for an observed process, and the explanation makes specific, solid predictions that have an incredibly high degree of accuracy, then using the naturalistic explanation does not involve faith. We've been over this point before in this thread - naturalism is
not based on faith, but rather is based on the fact that so far naturalism has
worked, and we have determined naturalistic models of reality that function with a very high degree of accuracy.
The "world view" of the
Creationist, however, is
not based on a history of accuracy. It's based on the unfounded belief that an old set of books is literally true. Nearly all of its predictions (a global flood, all of Exodus, 6-day Creation, a young Earth) have been
soundly disproven, some of them long before Darwin was ever on the scene (no age for the Earth younger than millions of years has been seriously considered since over a century before Darwin was born). This is a belief based on faith.
Now, if you and I were to examine a corpse, observe a wound, and disagree over whether the wound was caused by a gunshot or a knife, neither conclusion would be based on faith - they are conclusions based on the evidence.
But if we find a bullet inside of the wound, the shape of the wound is consistent with a gunshot, there is no knife present, and there is a man with a still smoking gun standing in the next room being arested by the police who admits to shooting him, and you
still insist that the wound was caused by a knife becasue you have a book that says all wounds found on murder victims are the result of a stabbing...your position is no longer supported by any objective evidence, and instead is based on your subjective
faith in your book.
This is analogous to evolution. If the evidence works to a high degree of accuracy for
both Creationism and evolution, then one or both of us are simply wrong and neither belief is based on faith. But if evolution makes highly accurate predictions and Creationism does
not, continued insistence that Creationism is correct becasue of your Biblical worldview
is a belief based on faith, as your "interpretation of the evidence" has gone beyond "wrong" and into the realm of blind
faith.
™ Version 4.2