Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation, Evolution, and faith
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 246 of 456 (554962)
04-11-2010 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Flyer75
04-09-2010 2:35 PM


Hi Flyer,
Glad to see your first proposed topic catching on so well. Very interesting discussion (the only downside is reading up on the discussion eats up a bit of time).
Flyer75 writes:
I'm of the belief that although I disagree with it, evolutionists believe based on reason and logic and a little bit of faith to fill a few holes
You are correct that scientists do rely on faith. So do you. Presumably, when you get up in the morning you have faith that gravity will still keep you attached to the ground. Without looking in the garage (or the driveway) you'll probably assume that your car hasn't changed color overnight. It is much simpler to assume that things are much the same as they were last night, rather than to speculate that some unknown entity repainted your car and moved your house. Of course, you can always look out the window to be "sure".
In science, the simplest explanation is said to have the most "parsimony" (and no doubt scientists here will correct me if I apply the term incorrectly). Basically, a parsimonious explanation is that explanation which requires the least unevidenced or redundant parts to explain a phenomenon.
If I come upon a bloody murder, with the Butler standing right next to the victim holding a bloodied candlestick and wearing bloodied clothing whilst loudly exclaiming "I did it!", I could make the simple assumption that the Butler committed the murder with the candlestick.
However, I could also speculate that the murder was committed by an intelligent race of spacefaring penguins, who cruelly framed the butler and are using mind control to make him confess to the crime. Either explanation could be true, certainly neither one is disproven at the scene of the crime. But the former is more parsimonious.
Explanations that are not parsimonious are generally deemed less likely than parsimonious ones. One might speculate that unknown forces altered the speed of light, and carefully adjusted every property of the universe to make it reflect that the universe is younger than it appears. It is certainly a possibility. But which requires more faith to accept? That the Creator is playing silly buggers with scientists? Or that considerable evidence for an old earth exists precisely because the earth is old?
There are always gaps in science, and we have faith that when those gaps eventually get filled they'll make sense, and hopefully mesh with the rest of what we know about the universe so far (otherwise it's back to the drawing board). There is no need to point out that evolutionists rely on faith. Every single person on this planet relies on faith to make it through the day. The reason creationism is not on par with the theory of evolution, is that the former requires many more leaps of faith, while the latter is more parsimonious.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 2:35 PM Flyer75 has not replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 251 of 456 (555011)
04-11-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Flyer75
04-11-2010 9:34 AM


Hi Flyer,
Flyer75 writes:
I still maintain that science has some holes to fill in that are currently filled in by faith
Which holes are these?
Flyer75 writes:
I started this thread in regards to the very first step of evolution, or the origins of life
Which isn't really a step in biological evolution. It's what came before the first step. But I see your point. You're saying that because we don't know what started life off, we must use faith as a placeholder until we do know. What's wrong with simply not knowing?
Science is agnostic about what it doesn't know. Scientists are not required to believe a priori that life arose in a certain way. I'm not a scientist, but I believe that right now there is no consensus as to how exactly life arose. We know that the components of life, amino acids, can come together through natural means. But we don't know how the first "living", evolving molecules formed and developed.
No faith is required to say "I don't know". Sure, one might speculate, as Darwin did, of "warm little ponds". But not even Darwin claimed to know the answer to life's origins, and certainly did not make it part of his theory.
My experience of science (from reading textbooks and popular science writers) is that gaps are not filled by faith, but by speculation and study. Until we know what caused the first replicating molecules, there will be competing hypotheses, but no sure answer. Where do you see faith in this process?
Flyer75 writes:
A text book that taught evolution 30 years ago is today obsolete
Thank goodness science classes stay clear of 3000 year old accounts then.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Flyer75, posted 04-11-2010 9:34 AM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 4:22 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024