effort into one topic). But at least I'll post the five problems that are the "most troublesome to evolutionary theory."
All which are demonstrably wrong and require no amount of faith to show that they are wrong.
It's take faith to transcend any problems that are presented.
It takes faith to come to a conclusion about something without evidence. This is not being done.
And these problems don't only happen in evolution. Right now, our world is goverened by two sets of laws: Newtonian mechanics and quantum physics. It can't be possible to live by two different sets, so this is another example of how science is incomplete.
Science never claimed to be complete. Your assumption that it has is a distortion.
Evolution is more like a continuum, so it would totally change our perception of animals. The current method of classification
(kindom-phylum-order-class-family-genus-species) is commonly used today in textbooks. Evolution would imply that this is false. There are no
distinct classes of animals. Just a continuum of different organisms.
We give classifications for things in a continuium all the time. In light we call things red, blue, green, etc even though there is no natural rule that tells us when red actually becomes orange. Evolution does not imply that the species classification is false just that it may be hard to pidgeon hole some animals into distinct category. Just because something is part of a continuium dosen't mean we should try to classify parts of it if it helps us in our understanding. Even if it did destroy the species classification, there is no reason not to throw out acceptance of old knowledge when something better is discovered.
Evolution may seem so prominent right now, but we must not forget that is only for this day, and not the next.
Since we cannot know what we are going to know in the future we tentativly accept that the TOE is true. People have been saying that word for awhile now and I get the feeling that you don't get it. Tentative. It is what we know for now that is the best.
So is evolution really the end-all be-all theory, or is just another theory?
No part of science is end-all be-all. Once again, scientific theories are held to be tentativly true so that progress can continue. If one of those theories is false then try to use it in a future circumstance should uncover problems. This has even happened with the TOE which is why we have punctuated equillibrium.
How much faith (faith which transcends the current limits
and problems of evolution) should we put in evolution as the right road to take in describing our life? For when you have faith in
evolution, you inevitably will focus your efforts on proving that which you have faith in.
Since you are assuming that people who accept the TOE do so by faith it is hard to respond to you. You are not asking a question you are stating your opinion. We should use the TOE as our best theory regarding the change we see in life until that theory is no longer the best one. Only by using the TOE in further research will we ever discover IF there is something wrong with it so proceeding with it held as tentativly true is pretty much the only way anything can be done. This is in no way focusing the effort in a biased way. It is simply progressing with the best knowledge that we currently have. How could you expect more?
™ Version 4.2