Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

Well, if there are closed minds on the one side perhaps you can show us what evidence and reasoning is being missed.There are a lot of topics in different fora to handle any of the things that you think are being overlooked.If you are a young-earther perhaps you can start with the dating issue. Since you seem to like to disuss the philosophy behind knowledge and learning things maybe you can show a how a different approch to learning about the real world would work better than the approach we call science.

I am still waiting for the other views, the evidence being missed and the errors in reasoning?The only conjecture that seems to be wandering around right now is ID. There are theads to discuss that. Perhaps you would like to go there and make it clear what is being missed.ABE
As for the problem of missing a whole different road to take, I would have to agree. In general we don't decide to throw something out that is working. The idea being that if we are on a path that keeps working well but is the wrong one we will, eventually, come upon something that suggests there is a flaw somewhere.Newtonian mechanics went through this process. For centuries it was "right and true". Why would anyone conjecture a flaw in it without any evidence at all? Then there were a few things that didn't work out quite right. This lead to relativity.However, Newtonian mechanics was perhaps the first of the modern truely scientific theories. In that example we find that while "wrong" it is still "true enough" for many uses. Within the constraints under which it was developed and tested (though we didn't know they were constraints at the time) it is correct.Are there some kind of contraints over our thinking now? Go ahead, earn fame (and perhaps fortune); show what those are.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-13-2005 18:06 AM

Then pick a piece of evidence and show exactly what is wrong with it. Which is exactly why experiments of importance are expected to be replicated. Why the details are made available for review and critism by more than one person.You have a better way? Spell it out in detail.

It appears you haven't been reading very carefully. If you had you would know the answer we will give.It is the best answer we have at this time. It is also a very, very good well tested answer. There is no reason to expect a different answer in the near future.You have been asked for something other than idle speculation. When you supply that you might gain a small amount of credibility. As of now the suspicion is that you are critisizing something you don't know a lot about.

Please supply the details of the other theories with which we may compare it.

However, the theory of evolution is far, far from "horrible" it explains an enormous range of facts and relationships in biology.If you think it is "horrible" in any way please point out where that is.Please point out exactly (again if you have already done so) what it is that is being taken on "faith" (and if that isn't the religious type of faith perhaps you can define what you mean by the term ).You wave your arms in generalizations. We wait for you to get clearer on what you are talking about. It may be that you don't actually know; now is a good time to show that you do.

To "objective 'truth' " of course. But how do we approximate this objedtive truth as best as we can?The best method we have to date is the process that we adopt for science. If you have a better one please describe it.

Perhaps you would like to define "faith" then? I'm not sure which meaning or connotation of the word you are using.Is sure isn't the one that is used in church in reference to God.There may well be some definitions for the word which makes the idea of worrying about whether he utilizes this thingamabob a silly thing to worry about.There are other definitions which make it an obviously false idea.What is your definition precisely?

Perhaps you should offer your precise definition too Jar.It sounds like you are both using the word but it doesn't mean the same thing to the two of you.

But just what "sort" of faith are you talking about? I think if you define it clearly some here may say "Yea, so?". What is wrong with this sticker is:
1) It is trying to hint that there is some reason to doubt the ToE when in fact it is as "true" as anything we have in our lives. It is much, much more "true" than many other things we make big decisions on (including those of life and death). Suggesting that since it isn't TRUE in some unrealistic way means we should have significant doubts in it is very misleading. It is a deliberate misuse of the word theory by people who have had a chance to know better. That makes it dishonest.2) The only reasons anyone wants it there are all religious and not "scientific" in anyway. We are talking about science classrooms there is no place for religious-faith there. (Note I am trying to make clear which of the many possible definitions of "faith" I am referring to).If it were not for the above issues then a sticker saying that anything should be examined critically makes a lot of sense.As soon as you agree to having such a sticker stuck in the front of your Bible I'll go along with this in textbooks. (cept of course it wouldn't ever be able to be called a theory --- it would have to be called conjecture with no testable evidence to support it)

You still haven't defined "faith".The methods used are particularly important because we don't trust "man". It requires a lot of care to do the best we can to cover for the foibles and errors of humans.And if this is what you mean, then I'll go along with you. I have "faith" that we can, in spite of our weaknesses, make real progress in our understanding of the world. This isn't religious-faith though. If you think it is please explain.I see that we have been very, very successful in both explaining and doing things with the natural world. I think that justifies a bit of trust in our abilities.There doesn't seem to be anything else that has worked as well. So what else would one trust? Of course, so what? This is supposed to sound so very profound I'm sure. It sounds, instead, like an amateur philosopher stringing words together.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-14-2005 20:59 AM

Sticking to the current post title:I have noted that when someone asks for God to produce some evidence we are told that God is meant to be accepted on "faith". This means he will not supply any objective, tangible evidence. So "faith" in God is a zero-evidence level of "faith".Other things we might not accept with out some degree of evidence. If someone keeps insisting on playing the game of saying we take evolution on "faith" then we can attach a number (of some sort) to determine "how much faith".Something with a lot of faith involved is a zero evidence level of faith as God as been described many times.Accepting a use car salesman's word on a car's state maybe a 10 count of evidence (independent examination, talking to previous owner, our own test drive ...)Taking other things may require more or less evidence. The higher the number we have the less God-faith-like the "faith" is.The number for evolution would be in the many 1,000's or 10,000's or 100,000's depending on how we decide to cound independent pieces of evidence.The answer to the question "How Much Faith?" becomes "very, very, very little".

I would have to agree that an absolute no might be a bit strong. However, it seems that on one who drops in here wants to take the trouble to supply it.When there are two competing explanations in science it isn't what they both explain that helps at all. If a theory wishes to "win" it needs to explain something in a different way from its "competitor" and then show that the evidence supports it's explanation.So far it seems that the creationists run around, at best, saying "me too" to everything that pops up. However, this is always after the fact. No evidence is produced that supports only creationism.You might note that almost all the discussion here is in the faith and belief type topics and is all very philosophical.I've pointed out to YEC'ers a few times that if they could show the earth was only 6,000 years old I'd have a hard time accepting the ToE as an explanation for life's diversity. Yet they always give up on trying to show what is wrong with the dates we have.The creationists who will make all sorts of claims for evidence and objective support for thier views mostly avoid the real science fora like they were going to be seduced by the devil if they go there. They think that the various creationist web sites will give them what they need. Then they find that they don't.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-15-2005 23:19 AM

But it is easy for you. All you need is to produce the evidence.

We had a whole thread on my face. I am going for new pictures by a pro in two weeks.The very sad thing is I think I AM smiling. And my feelings are, again, very hurt.