Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

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?

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.

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.

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

quote:

---

And on what ground is evolution considered the best theory? I'll furhter diagnose this when I receive the answer to the question.

---

Well because of the evidence stacked up in favour of this theory. Rather than discuss the 100s and 100s of example - let's narrow it, tell us which element is incorrect. Here's a hint don't both just presenting something from AIG or something like that, we seen and seen them off more times that I can remember.

quote:

---

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?

---

No not at all, all the IDs have to do is present their evidence to the peer-review journals in the same way as every other scientist....Not one of us is expecting a fully formed theory to just appear, however some groundwork would be nice.

quote:

---

Notice the word "only." I think that single word sends a strong message.

---

Yes that we can't think of anything better that fits the facts as presented. If you know something we don't, let us know.

quote:

---

There is certainly a lot of controversy behind evolution, so I wouldn't quite say that.

---

Actually that's not true at all - creationists try and paint this picture, but besides the states most people in the west think they are nutters. In scientific circles there has not been controversy about the broad thrusts of evolution for a long long time. again unless you know any different?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 18:05 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 18:07 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 18:17 AM

quote:

---

No, it takes no faith.

---

That just isn't true jar. Everything in life pretty much takes faith.Sitting in a chair takes faith, that the chair is designed well enough not to break.To believe that evolution is perfectly valid without a flaw in evidence, in data gathering, in experimentation, and in theory however small or great is simply crazy.You not only demonstarte faith in every piece of data that is presented to you, but in the Originator himself.How can you rest total belief, deem something absolute truth, when that supposed truth is of man. As you know man is imperfect and mistakes, flaws, and wrong ideas are part of Man.This message has been edited by prophex, 01-13-2005 18:09 AM

---

"For I am the Lord your God, who churns up the sea so that it's waves roar-"
Isaiah 51:15

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.

Well, let's examine your arguments. Maybe for you, not for me. I decide based on examination, even if cursory, and past experience. There is no faith involved, rather it is a matter of decision based on evidence. Well, two things here. First, Evolution is about as close to fact as we are likely to ever see. Even if there are errors, and there have been many, the vast bulk of evidence is overwhelming.But you are also bringing in the issue of theory. That has nothing to do with evolution, the body of evidence. The Theory of Evolution is simply the best explanation we've found yet. Again, no faith is needed.If you are speaking of the TOE then let's follow your reasoning.You say Well, it doesn't matter if there are flaws in the evidence. That's the beauty of the scientific method. The TOE is not based on one piece of evidence or even a few pieces of evidence. Rather it's based on a vast body of evidence from a variety of disiplines. Again, not a problem. One of the key points in science is reproducibility. If others cannot duplicate the data gathering then the data is suspect. But again, those issues are rapidly caught under the scientific method so that no faith is required. Infact the whole system is based on the idea of doubt and cross checking as opposed to faith. Again, the system takes care of that. Before an experimant is accepted it must be reproduced by other, unaligned labs. No faith required. Still no problem. The theory is constantly subject to revision. As errors are found, the theory is re-examined to find its weakness and revised as needed. Again, no faith required. Well, I have no idea who or what the Originatoris so I can't comment on that. But I don't see faith being involved. Instead, I see doubt being the guiding force, show me the byword.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If the evidence was stacked in favor of dictatorships as the best form of government, would you believe that?

---

I forget isn't this a version of "do you still beat your wife?"Well what do you think? Isn't your question actually rhetoric in nature?The truth of the matter is that you are just trying to avoid saying "I actually don't know enough about evolution to answer this question". So again what's the problem we've missed? where's the flaw?

quote:

---

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?

---

ah self-delusion at it's best. This forum exists because there are people don't believe in evolution and they like to come here to discuss it. I'm not saying everyone believe in evolution but amongst people who actually understand science.. well let's say the numbers aren't with you (ie those who don't run around shouting "well it's a theory not a fact" and "if it true why is it only a theory")

quote:

---

Why must you believe even though this forum brings so many challenges to evolution?

---

From a very very small self-selecting sample. I'll be brutally honest, most of them don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes to science. Half of them are so poor that they are destroyed with their first post (we call them hit and run posters).Look how many conversations we are currently having here describing the basics to creationists. It's a shocking reflection on the creationist movement.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 18:33 AM

Of course a challenge WAS launched against Newtonian Mechanics. And it was successful. And it did it without avoiding the need for sound reasoning and evidence.And current evolutionary theory could sustain the same sort of challenge. Arguably the New Synthesis of the 1920s WAS that sort of challenge. So-called "Evo-devo" studies (combining evolutionary theory with developmental biology) are just one area of productive research which might in principle launch another.The closed minds seem to be on the other side - the people who cling to other views despite the evidence. Evolutionary scientists are still working on expanding and deepening our understanding.

quote:

---

Maybe for you, not for me. I decide based on examination, even if cursory, and past experience. There is no faith involved, rather it is a matter of decision based on evidence.

---

Of course there is faith involved. One has to decide if the evidence is ample truth. So instead of putting faith in the chair or the chair's maker, you put it in the evidence of past experience. I see.

quote:

---

Well, two things here. First, Evolution is about as close to fact as we are likely to ever see. Even if there are errors, and there have been many, the vast bulk of evidence is overwhelming.

---

I didn't want to know about the evidence itself, (somehow you seem to slip it in) but the faith involved in believing that this evidence is truth.Again you rely on the evidence, faith is utilized here.

quote:

---

Well, it doesn't matter if there are flaws in the evidence. That's the beauty of the scientific method. The TOE is not based on one piece of evidence or even a few pieces of evidence. Rather it's based on a vast body of evidence from a variety of disiplines.

---

So what all the more faith needed in the people who discovered this evidence isn't there? I doubt the thought of flaw has come to your mind though.

quote:

---

Again, not a problem. One of the key points in science is reproducibility. If others cannot duplicate the data gathering then the data is suspect. But again, those issues are rapidly caught under the scientific method so that no faith is required. Infact the whole system is based on the idea of doubt and cross checking as opposed to faith.

---

So the accuracy of the evidence is something you are sure upon. This does not eliminate the dilemma it seems, of faith.

quote:

---

Again, the system takes care of that. Before an experimant is accepted it must be reproduced by other, unaligned labs. No faith required.

---

One thing I have learned from Science class in High School is that faith is a necessity. To believe that the scientist did not make a mistake in the experiment requires faith. Multiply that by how many did that same experiment ( reproduced ) and you will come to a great amount of faith required.

quote:

---

Still no problem. The theory is constantly subject to revision. As errors are found, the theory is re-examined to find its weakness and revised as needed. Again, no faith required.

---

Unless you, your self found these errors, or at that will find them, then you have used enormous amounts of faith to accept it at the time.

quote:

---

Well, I have no idea who or what the Originatoris so I can't comment on that.

---

Darwin, you know that guy who wrote "Origins...", thought it fit him well.You have used faith without being conscious of it.

---

"For I am the Lord your God, who churns up the sea so that it's waves roar-"
Isaiah 51:15

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.

quote:

---

But before that challenge, what was the perception on Newtonian Mechanics? Wouldn't going against it before that challenge be "stupid?"

---

Well if it was done in the same pisspoor manner as ID sure, but with actual science? no I don't think so.

quote:

---

Wasn't Galileo prosecuted for suggesting that our solar system was heliocentric, not geocentric?

---

That is not a great example for a christian to bring up.....