Creation, Evolution, and faith

Quite honestly, nobody has a such an answer. I'll note that this is the question of abiogenesis, and is not itself part of evolution.The three main competing hypotheses are:
(1) Divine intervention (god did it);
(2) Panspermia (earth was infected from outer space);
(3) It results from chemical events on the early earth.Many theists might see (1) as the obviously correct answer. Atheists will tend to rule it out. Agnostics will leave it there as a hypothesis, but point out that there is no evidence.On (2), there is some evidence of organic molecules in outer space, but too little evidence to settle the issue. Panspermia was more attractive when it was believed that the universe had existed forever, for then there was the possibility that life had always existed somewhere in the universe. However, if the universe is finite, as BB cosmology asserts, then the case for (2) is a lot weaker. It does still open the possibility that life could have got it start somewhere else other than earth.At present, I am inclined to favor (3). But I would not expect it to have involved the chance creation of suitable DNA or RNA. Rather, it seems plausible that simpler homeostatic processes could have formed some kind of pre-life, and have evolved toward the kind of life we see now. That early pre-life stage could have involved something like symbiotic unions (if you can use "symbiotic" with pre-life), with our current biology arising out of those unions.In any case, at present I am open to any of those three possibilities, and I am open to consider others. We might never have the evidence to be able to settle this issue.

No. That has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. As others have mentioned, the ToE describes how life changes after its inception; it says nothing about how life began, and even less about the origin of matter. Think of it this way. There is a science of ballistics that talks about how objects behave in flight. If a physicist is studying how a bullet travels through the air, he needs to know its speed, its trajectory, its shape, wind speed, etc., but he doesn't need to know what factory produced the bullet. It's the same with the ToE. It describes how life changes without even considering how it began. It began sometime, and has changed.I think a big part of the reason why creationists refuse to accept this dichotomy, and insist on lumping it all together is because creationists perceive it all to be a challenge to the bible, so they need to undermine it all. It's all of a piece to creationism. But to science, they're very different questions, answered by very different fields of inquiry. So, while you may continue to try to conflate the two, scientists will continue to point out that they are not the same thing. First, a note on terminology. Nothing is proven in science. Nothing. All of science is tentative, subject to revision in the light of new evidence or a new interpretation of old evidence. Proof is for math and logic, not science.To address your question about what evidence is there about the origin of matter, I don't know. It's not a field I studied much and what little study I did do was a long time ago. Perhaps another here can answer that question, but it's really properly a subject for another thread.I can tell you this much as the topic relates to your general theme of faith. The origin of the universe is a subject that is being pursued by scientists. And I am quite confident that any answers, theories or hypothesis put forward will be based on available evidence together with conclusions that can be confidently made from that evidence.Creationists love to accuse scientists of basing their findings on faith, or skewing their conclusions based on their own presuppositions, but I've yet to see a single creationist actually support those claims with evidence. In fact, any scientist who actually did that would be extraordinarily unsuccessful in the field and rather quickly exposed by other scientists. You see, scientists are much like real people. They want to succeed in life. And there is no better way to succeed in the field of science than overthrowing a generally accepted paradigm. Einstein is famous, not just because of the Theory of Relativity, but specifically because the ToR supplanted one of the most spectacularly successful theories in all of science, Newtonian mechanics.If there truly was another theory that fit the evidence better than the ToE, or even as good as it, the developer of that theory would win the Nobel Prize.Scientists spend incredible amounts of time trying to disprove the theories of other scientists. This is necessary, because a scientific theory cannot be proven to be true. The most that we can say about any theory is that it hasn't been disproven and has survived all attacks against it. Obviously, the more vigorously and completely it is attacked, the stronger it becomes, and the stronger the inference that it accurately describes reality.You talk about scientists taking things on faith. To the extent that this is true, it is simply that scientists can't start from scratch in everything they wish to investigate. So, they rely on the accuracy what previous generations have established. But even this does not equate to taking the prior findings on faith. Instead, it means having faith in the ability of the scientific method to produce findings that can be relied upon; faith that prior hypotheses have been repeatedly tested and independently examined by other scientists in the field and found to be of value.But even this faith is not absolute. Even well-established theories are being challenged and tested with new evidence and new theories. Darwin's theory, for all its success, has been modified over the years by new ideas that subsequent scientists had. And it will continue to be challenged and tested by future generations. That's just what science does.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Charles D. was a naturalist/biologist, not an astronomer, and he died a few dacades before it was even discovered that galaxies like M31 aren't here in our immediate stellar neighborhood. He had no clue whatsoever that the oldest matter we can observe was 10,000,000,000 years older than the earliest life we know about. And he made no more than passing reference - "a warm pond" - to any speculation at all on the earliest life.You're conflating "life" and "matter," Flyer, and they aren't the same thing.

These last three posts were tremendously helpful. I never viewed "evolution" in the way it was just presented. I need to reread those posts and digest the information a little bit more but at first read they all make sense. Thanks for helping to clarify.

Descent with modification. It doesn't. Evolution is a concept in biology. The universe isn't alive. Universes don't have sex with other universes to produce little baby universes.

The impression I get from you is that you are truly interested in learning about evolution. Yet your OP reads like a classic creationist screed. Pardon me if I presume too much, but I've met many truly intelligent and inquisitive people with a seriously misguided understanding of what evolution and science are really all about because the information they have all came from creationist or creationist friendly sources. If this is case for you, I urge you to continue asking questions as you have been. This site is an excellent resource for truly curious people.You may occasionally come across people who seem rather short with these kinds of questions. We've all been here long enough to have seen dozens of creationists come through asking questions that they think will bring evolution crashing to the ground. They're not here to discuss, they don't listen to anyone else and they think they already know it all. Sometimes these people are hard to distinguish from those actually searching for answers. But if you really want accurate answers to the questions you may have, you will find most people here are quite eager to help.Good luck in your search.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

If memory serves, Darwin only mentions this once in "Origin of Species". It can be found in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the last chapter. It reads,

quote:

---

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

---

You can read the entire book online here. The online version makes it a little easier to do word searches.So Darwin hints at a theistic or deistic start for life, and from that point evolution takes over. Darwin didn't really deal with the origin of life, just the origin of biodiversity.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I'm fairly certain some astro-physicist somewhere already has that theory in the works. You never know what working down in CERN will do to a man's mind......

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

Then how come it's called the Big Bang?

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

quote:

---

So I believe imo, that evolution requires faith.

---

I will stir things up and agree with your basic premise. But I would broaden your statement to "science requires faith." This is a statement involving metaphysics and philosophy of science.But first, I must correct some of the many misconceptions in your OP.

quote:

---

What I mean is, no one knows how evolution started. How the process began. Was it a big bang? Was it an ocean of soup charged by energy?

---

As has already been mentioned, you are conflating three different and distinct ideas. A) the origin of the universe, B) the origin of life, and C) the evolution of life once it was already here.

quote:

---

I would hope that all YEC would stipulate that faith in the inerrant Word of God is the presupposition for our beliefs.

---

All conservative Evangelicals (including non-YECs) would agree with this position. But YECs add another "faith position" which you are overlooking: They essentially believe that their INTERPRETATION of the Word of God is inerrant. As others have suggested in this thread, YECs tend to be unwilling to reconsider their interpretation of Scripture and become very stubborn and irrational. Science is data-driven. Much of theology is data-driven as well (though it accepts a different type of data). But IMO YEC is largely interpretation-driven rather than data-driven.

quote:

---

I believe the above can be said for the evolutionist.

---

I would broaden this: "the above can be said for the scientist."But the word "faith" has many different nuances and meanings, so can be vague and misleading. You even use it in different ways in your own post. It would be less confusing if you better defined what you meant. "Faith" involves content (what are the facts that one believes?), an object (in what or who does one put their trust?) and a basis (why does one believe these facts and trust this object?) Sometimes when one uses the term "faith" he is referring to the content, sometimes to the object, and sometimes to the basis.BTW, Atheists (e.g. Dawkins) often use the word "faith" to mean "blind faith" and then deny that scientists have "faith." This is a straw-man argument. Most Christians do not have this type of "faith" either, because their faith is not "blind," it is based on biblical evidence. And scientists DO speak of belief and faith, as your Darwin quotes show.But back to your premise.
1) Is science based on faith? Does science have faith-based presuppositions? Yes, this is a metaphysical consideration. Scientists have faith in their basic senses and in logic. They have faith that the physical world behaves in a consistent and potentially understandable manner. Further, most scientists believe that their theories have some actual correspondence with the physical universe, that the theories are in some sense "real" instead of merely being imaginary non-physical models. None of these positions can be proven; we accept them on faith. But the scientific system works quite well, which gives us some confidence in these premises.2) Does the daily practice of science involve faith? Of course. Any practicing scientist knows this. Your quotes from Darwin show this. Philosophers of science have discussed this at length. There comes a point in the development of a scientific theory when if finally crosses a threshold in the mind of the scientist and becomes accepted as true. Perhaps the evidence for it has finally become overwhelming, or perhaps it has explained some crucial data which no other theory can explain as well. There are always still some "loose ends", some data which doesn't quite fit. In spite of this, the scientist has become convinced that the theory is true. He believes that further development of the theory will eventually resolve the loose ends. He has gained "faith" in the theory, based on its success in explaining some crucial data.

Of course it must be noted that religious faith is very different from the very limited "faith" in science (mostly grounded in pragmatic necessity). Religious faith is much closer to blind faith than you are willing to admit (although there is indeed an industry in puffing up the "evidence" - or even fabricating evidence for Christianity - and quite likely for other religions, too).Equating the two is a standard YEC apologetic and one that is not convincing to anyone familiar with the facts.

quote:

---

2) Does the daily practice of science involve faith? Of course. Any practicing scientist knows this. Your quotes from Darwin show this

---

Clearly you did not understand the quotes. They show nothing of the sort. Unless perhaps you are now going to define faith as "belief without absolute proof".

quote:

---

There comes a point in the development of a scientific theory when if finally crosses a threshold in the mind of the scientist and becomes accepted as true. Perhaps the evidence for it has finally become overwhelming, or perhaps it has explained some crucial data which no other theory can explain as well. There are always still some "loose ends", some data which doesn't quite fit. In spite of this, the scientist has become convinced that the theory is true. He believes that further development of the theory will eventually resolve the loose ends. He has gained "faith" in the theory, based on its success in explaining some crucial data.

---

The interesting point is that only one of the three quotes from Darwin even describes anything like this case. In the other two Darwin DID have counter arguments as is absolutely clear if you just read them. And even in the remaining one, the fact was that the evidence available at the time was insufficient to answer the question either way. THat doesn't make for a strong argument on either side.So really all you are saying is that at some point the evidence for a theory outweighs the weak (or non-existent) evidence backing the objections. This is an application of reason, not faith.I will further add that the settled conclusions of science - despite enjoying far better evidential support than the claims of religion - are still regarded as tentative and subject to revision if our understanding should change. Only the most liberal branches of religion might even approach this view. Another reason why religious faith is different from the "faith" you refer to, and another reason not to confuse them.In short, like much of apologetics, this argument is a deception, trying to sweep important facts under the carpet. The very fact that the religious see the need to resort to such arguments tells us that the evidence is not truly on their side.

And the fact that there are some 4,000 world religions, and perhaps 40,000 sects, denominations, or "flavors" of Christianity suggests that there is no empirical evidence to address competing claims.If there was evidence, instead of faith and belief, the claims of these various religions and denominations could be compared and the one supported by the evidence could be identified.But religion doesn't rely on evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Of course it must be noted that religious faith is very different from the very limited "faith" in science (mostly grounded in pragmatic necessity). Religious faith is much closer to blind faith than you are willing to admit (although there is indeed an industry in puffing up the "evidence" - or even fabricating evidence for Christianity - and quite likely for other religions, too).

---

Yes, the two are different. But I believe the difference is primarily in the types of evidence that are accepted in each case.Those who do not have religious faith (e.g. Dawkins) often accuse religious faith of being "blind." This is a biased perspective, of course. I believe it is partly an attempt to dismiss something that they do not want to accept.

quote:

---

Clearly you did not understand the quotes. They show nothing of the sort. Unless perhaps you are now going to define faith as "belief without absolute proof".

​

So really all you are saying is that at some point the evidence for a theory outweighs the weak (or non-existent) evidence backing the objections. This is an application of reason, not faith.

---

You are incorrectly dichotomizing faith and reason. Biblical faith is based on reason. (The Greek word for believe, "pisteuo" means to be convinced or persuaded.) In science, faith in a theory is based on evidence and reason. In both endeavors, faith and reason work together. They are not opposed as many atheists want to believe.

quote:

---

I will further add that the settled conclusions of science - despite enjoying far better evidential support than the claims of religion - are still regarded as tentative and subject to revision if our understanding should change. Only the most liberal branches of religion might even approach this view. Another reason why religious faith is different from the "faith" you refer to, and another reason not to confuse them.

---

Yes, I agree that there is some difference here. Many religious folks (e.g. YECs) are inflexible in their position. However, professional theologians tend to be somewhat more open-minded about their interpretations. And professional scientists often become entrenched in their own views. So while I agree with the general difference that you note, I think the difference is a matter of degree rather than a qualitative distinction.

I agree with your assertion that they typically are refuting the blind faith definition of the word but I believe they are right to do so. When one accuses scientists of using faith, do you really think they are being accused of making reasoned deductions on empirical evidence...but they have faith that what their eyes see is really there? That definition of faith is virtually meaningless. Accusing scientists of using faith is accusing them of arriving at conclusions using blind faith; its disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Believing in magic people casting spells, walking on water, living in a whale for 3 days, a boat with millions of animals, etc, is not based on evidence.

quote:

---

Yes, the two are different. But I believe the difference is primarily in the types of evidence that are accepted in each case.
Those who do not have religious faith (e.g. Dawkins) often accuse religious faith of being "blind." This is a biased perspective, of course. I believe it is partly an attempt to dismiss something that they do not want to accept.

---

I could say much the same about your remarks above. And I would say that Dawkins is definitely closer to the truth than you are.

quote:

---

You are incorrectly dichotomizing faith and reason.

---

I am simply pointing out that they are distinct and different. If a conclusion is based on reason it does not require faith.

quote:

---

Biblical faith is based on reason. (The Greek word for believe, "pisteuo" means to be convinced or persuaded.) In science, faith in a theory is based on evidence and reason. In both endeavors, faith and reason work together. They are not opposed as many atheists want to believe.

---

I don't believe that the faith of actual believers is based on reason. My experience of apologetics suggests that it is more founded on rationalisations, believed only because they reinforce pre-established ideas.Whether faith is intrinsically opposed to reason I will need to consider further, but it is indisputable that faith is often opposed to reason.To get back to the topic the whole pint of the argument is to give the impression that the faith of creationism is equal to the evidence and reason of science. Clearly this is false, and it is a fine example of faith opposing reason and of apologists attempting to rationalise away the fact that the evidence is very much against them.