Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?

I didn't want to be critical or deprecating, but since you insist on bringing this up again I'll tell you that the items in your list represent are just naive misconceptions about science and evolution. If you doubt this then I think you should follow my suggestion and join some threads where they're being discussed, or propose your own threads. An opinion maintained through lack of knowledge is not worth much. This statement is somewhat contradictory. If the evidence for accepting evolution exists, how is it faith? If a jury freed a man because of exculpatory evidence, would you say they did it based on faith in his innocence? I don't think so. So why would you say something contradictory like this, that evolution has evidence but is accepted on faith? The flaws in Creationism are more fundamental:

• Creationist ideas have no evidence. This is not so much a flaw but more a reflection of the religious, as opposed to scientific, nature of Creationism.
  ​
• Most of Creationism is criticism of evolution. Creationism proposes no actual evidence-based theories of its own. In essence, Creationism proposes Genesis.

Moving on: There is nothing wrong with the sticker as long as it were applied across all science textbooks in the school system. Singling out evolution textbooks for this treatment is an attempt to make it seem like evolution has deficiencies that other theories do not.It is also an attempt to confuse the scientific meaning of the term "theory" with its popular usage. In ordinary conversation someone might say, "Well, it's my theory that crop circles come from alien landings," and this is not the scientific usage of "theory". The person is not referring to a conceptual framework built upon evidence and replicated many times. The sticker attempts to associate the popular meaning of "theory" with evolution, and that is wrong. No one thinks this is utopia. But the scientific method has a solid record of producing successful results, and this is obvious from any examination of the current state of technology within any scientific field. The successes are so stunning that there is really no need to explicitly address your question about how we justify our acceptance of the scientific method. To repeat once again, Descartes' doubt is embraced by science in the concept of tentativity.--Percy

I think sidelined had the best and most appropriate response. The source of everything we know and everything written, be it science or religion, is man.--Percy

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".

The answer to how much faith you have in evolution is how much faith you have in man. That would differ in some people (especially optomists vs pessimists).Also, I'd like to pick out something else you said: No evidence? None? Zero? Didn't your English teach tell you to never use absolutes? I think someone's showing a pretty obvious bias.*a cookie to anyone who can pick out the inherent paradox in my statement

A * generally is paired with another in an actual statement - want to add it in?

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

Then you are saying that evolutionists are optimists and YECs are pessimists? That does fit with a few other things I've noticed. "...never use absolutes..." Very good.Do you realize how funny this sounds coming from a YEC? The "were-you-there-to-see-it" crowd? The same folks who want the ultimate truth from every scientific theory? The ones who complain that "science changes"? Face it, absolutism is in your genes.Actually, it is a true statement that there is no documentable evidence that uniquely supports YEC.

Where did I say that evolutionists are optimists and YECs are pessimists? A cookie to you. I was well aware of that. My English teacher once said that in a debate class (he has that sort of sense of humor), and I was the only one listening who picked up the subtle joke. It's just like how paper doesn't grow on trees... Nice job of using stereotypes. Actually, you are using deductive reasoning here, so you can't quite conclusively prove that statement.

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

Oops, I didn't see this message earlier. No wonder I was confused when Percy said "sidelined has the most appropiate response."Well, first off, you're attempting to put creation on the same ground as evolution, but that doesn't put evolution on a higher level at all. This topic is about believing evolution, not creation. Nonetheless, I've learned that you just can't seem to realize this, so I'll appease you with a response. Well if the Bible is open to many different interpretations, then so is processes in nature. Your logic here is self-destructive and contradictory. Well, the second statement offers the explanation to the first, but as for the explanation to the second statment, each man chooses for himself whether to have the faith to believe that God inspired the scriptures. Whereas in evolution, each man chooses for himself whether to have faith to believe that man accurately explains our world through evolution. The key to interpretting the Scriptures is the Holy Spirit. So man must have faith that the Holy Spirit will show him the truth in Scripture. Actually, this is a misguided statement. The NT focuses specifically on living by grace, not by the law. Actually, man puts faith in God. That He was behind the Bible, not man. That He will not lead him astray.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-16-2005 18:22 AM

You didn't I have to guess what you are thinking. You will notice that my statement is in the form of a question. I reiterate that question.

quote:

---

Nice job of using stereotypes.

---

Sometimes they are useful. It just struck me as funny, a YEC telling us not to use absolutes... I don't intend to. I am satisfied with the veracity of the statement based on many years of study and work. Your standards of proof are not attainable, even by your own explanation.

So, what are some of those explanations?

Logically if other interpretations of processes in nature are false, then other interpretations of the Bible are false. Regardless, though, the aforementioned statement is not based off of my logic, but yours.That point aside, however, in religion people ultimately put their faith in God. In evolution people ultimately put their faith in man.

quote:

---

But I don't expect it to be flawless. That is the nature of knowledge and science. It is not TRUTH and is not even concerned with TRUTH. It is attempting to explain what is seen and found. It is designed so that flaws are discovered and the system constantly improved.

​

No FAITH.

---

quote:

---

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

---

I've said it before, I believe you rest your trust in the evidence.Please stop with the "Fortunately,..." stuff? I already knew.

---

The subtlety of nature is far beyond that of sense or of the understanding; so that the specious meditations, speculations, and theories of mankind are but a kind of insanity, only there is no one to stand by and observe it.
-Francis Bacon "Novum Organum"

read jar's replies as done b4

---

The subtlety of nature is far beyond that of sense or of the understanding; so that the specious meditations, speculations, and theories of mankind are but a kind of insanity, only there is no one to stand by and observe it.
-Francis Bacon "Novum Organum"