Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

Although evolution is one of the most widely accepted theories of the origin of life, it certainly isn't perfect. Now my point isn't to go into detail about perceived problems with evolution, but to establish that evolution is still a theory, not a law, and, scientifically speaking, it isn't perfect. This creates a gap between evolution as truth and evolution in reality. To cross this gap and believe evolution as truth despite its perceived flaws, wouldn't one have to take a leap of faith?

Not all agree that evolution is the best theory. Some people would subscribe to intelligent design as the best theory. I believe that in Kansas the schools teach only intelligent design. So to assume the theory of evolution as the best theory is taking your own leap of faith. Notice the phrase "pretty sure." The question is, how sure is pretty sure? On what foundation have we considered evolution to be the right track? The philosopher Descartes (sometimes known as the founder of Modern Philosophy) opens Meditation I of Meditations on the First Philosophy with the following words Descartes does an excellent job of establishing doubt as a way to remove any pre-conceived assumptions. Now he goes a lot deeper in his doubt than we ever will, but he nonetheless demonstrates the importance of doubt and questioning that which was taught as true. Another thing is that a lot of effort and research goes into evolution, so in this way there is much power behind evolution. But of what nature is power in relation to the sciences? Are we using power as a means to critically analyze evolution, or is power simply a means of giving power to the theory of evolution?

Well, since we've established this, I'm going to go into more detail by discussing the specifics of how much faith we put in the evolution. In this, topic, though we're focusing on faith in evolution, so we don't have to discuss faith in ID or creationism. Also, Descarte's quote was not about individuals and the folly of youth, it was about doubt. If you still don't believe this I can post another quote from the Synopsis to show this. He focuses on how doubt can remove any assumptions or prejudices we have made about what is and is not true. But at what point did we put our faith in evolution as the way to go and heavily focus our efforts on it? When one theory begins to dominate, it can lead to close-mindedness to other views. If the Democrats died out, the Republicans would hold power over this country, but does that necessarily mean that the Republicans are right?

And on what ground is evolution considered the best theory? I'll furhter diagnose this when I receive the answer to the question. Intelligent design as a scientific theory is in a primitive stage (the concept has been around a lot, but the science is rather new). However, if we reject ID on the grounds that it is more primitive and does not have as much science behind it as evolution, can it even be possible for evolution to be challenged? Wouldn't all new theories have to be rejected on this ground? Notice the word "only." I think that single word sends a strong message. Actually, you say that at a certain point, you are willing to believe evolution. Therefore, you do have faith in it, but you establish a limit to your faith (up to a certain degree of uncertainty). That is your own assumption. There is certainly a lot of controversy behind evolution, so I wouldn't quite say that. The best theory right now? Yes. Very close to truth? Debatable.

But if this kind of line of reasoning continues, it will be impossible to challenge evolution if it continues to develop more research. And even if evolution is false, if people are putting their faith in evolution and thus their research, it's going to be harder to tackle evolution, just like its hard for a poor man to go up against a rich man.

Well, for the hundreds of years Newtonian mechanics was "right and true," could a challenge have been levied on it with much success, even though it isn't "right and true" in certain areas.

If the evidence was stacked in favor of dictatorships as the best form of government, would you believe that? If evolution was that dominant, then why does this forum even exist? Why must you believe even though this forum brings so many challenges to evolution? This is exactly the kind of faith in evolution I'm talking about.

But before that challenge, what was the perception on Newtonian Mechanics? Wouldn't going against it before that challenge be "stupid?" Wasn't Galileo prosecuted for suggesting that our solar system was heliocentric, not geocentric? That kind of logic would force everybody to accept evolution according to you, so I would identify you as the close-minded one.

This topic isn't about proving evolution. It's about putting faith in evolution. I have another topic about the actual theory itself, called "Proving Evolution in the Age of Genetics," in the Biological Evolution forum. But all I've been hearing now is "We have lots of evidence. We have lots of evidence. We have lots of evidence..." I haven't seen much of a capability to think deeper beyond that.

I was gone for a couple of days and when I got back, the topic was basically dead, so I didn't bother. Besides, that discussion is probably off-topic anyway. This topic is about putting faith in evolution, not ID. Activity meter. The forum is programmed to monitor the activity of a topic. The more active it is, the higher the bar goes.

I didn't quote all of Descartes and all of his philosophy, I focused specifically on his views on doubt. What's wrong with his view on doubt? But what is more real? Evolution or the chair?

There's two main problems I see here with the current argumentation here.1. The mountains of evidence.
Evolutionists claim there is mountains of evidence behind them, but have they really gone through these mountains and ensured that the scientific method has been followed accurately? That there are no two pieces in the evidence which contradict each other? In math, if one theory falls, every theory built on that theory falls, too. How can you be sure that one of the foundations of evolution is true beyond a doubt? Because if the foundation falls, so does the evidence and research built on that foundation.2. Redirecting this topic to an ID-bashing session.
This topic specifically focuses on faith evolution, not ID, so changing the focus on ID would suggest a lack of faith in evolution. In America, many of us consider democracy to be the ultimate government, but as Winston Churchill once said, Replace "government" with the "theory of origin", and "democracy" with "evolution." Is democracy truly the ultimate form of government, or is it simply no more than the best answer at this time? Is evolution truly the ultimate form of the theory of origin, or is it simply no more than the best answer at this time?

Faith doesn't necessarily mean a religious faith. Faith merely indicates a belief which transcends the limits of sciences or any imperfections in the scientific proof. Well, actually, the topic title is about faith and evolution, so the most topical arguments would focus on faith in evolution. So this topic to a certain degree is more philosophical. It's not why you don't support other views, it's why you support this view (evolution). So, I would take this to say that evolution is accepted simply because it is the best theory (which would justify it by comparing it to other theories).

Ah, if you could not look deeper into my argument, I said that the specific means of rejecting ID would implicate a sort of immortality in evolution and thus a blind faith. I'm saying that ID, as well as any other theory that is developed, can in no way start on the same ground as evolution in the scientific procees. Therefore, this creates a monopoly of sorts for evolution (and if you want to why a monopoly is bad, look to Microsoft; that's all the evidence you'll ever need).

We can not justify evolution by saying that it is the best theory. If there were two forms of government, dictatorships and anarchies, which one would be the best? Regardless of which one you choose, they're both horrible. This demonstrates the problem of accepting evolution because it is the best theory. So we must instead compare evolution to the objective truth in our society. Once that is established, then we can work from there to further analyze the role of faith in evolution.On a general note, I have a sense that some of you are waiting for me to lay out the tenets of ID so that you can rip them apart. But that is not why I came here. I came here to diagnose what role faith plays in evolution. If you keep that in mind, perhaps my arguments would be more comprehensible.