Faith vs Faith

[Shortandy]

I am new so I won't pretend to have read everything posted on the topic of evolution and creationism. As I ponder this debate I notice one thing that both sides have in common and that is faith.

The evolutionist claim to have concrete proof but they don't.:sorry1: How can you prove that which science was unable to observe? Afterall observation is the foundation upon which science stands. How and something come from nothing, much less the order that we see from chaos? Where are the transitional forms? Not just one but the thousands upon thousands that we should be finding? If there were in fact groups of "things" that arer the common ancestor to monkeys and humans then where are they? I believe Darwin said we should be finding them. The point is that it takes faith to believe in evolution. I mean just look at the language the evolutionist uses and you will see the same words the creationist uses. Words like "believe". There belief is not based on fact but theory.

The creationist is in the same boat so they shouldn't be upset :sad4: . You can not absolutely prove there is a "Creator" to the evolutionist. Many of the creaionists thoughts are based on faith as well.

The point is it takes faith. Picking what side of the fence you stand on is up to you. Examine the evidence and philosophies we have but no one on either side of the fence has absolute fact but both have faith.

 

[Runlikethewind]

I am new so I won't pretend to have read everything posted on the topic of evolution and creationism.

Welcome to the Forum! Hope you enjoy your time here, I sure have!

As I ponder this debate I notice one thing that both sides have in common and that is faith.

I think your idea of faith here is to broad. The acceptance of a scientific theory as being an accurate description of reality even though there are still questions about evidence and the certainty of the theory does not, in my opinion amount to "faith". I see faith as being a belief in that which is UN-provable not a belief in that which has yet to be proven as you seem to be indicating.

The evolutionist claim to have concrete proof but they don't.:sorry1: How can you prove that which science was unable to observe? Afterall observation is the foundation upon which science stands.

Scientists have observed evolution in bacteria, fruit flies, and most notably the stickleback fish. http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/belllab/research.html

How and something come from nothing, much less the order that we see from chaos? Where are the transitional forms? Not just one but the thousands upon thousands that we should be finding? If there were in fact groups of "things" that arer the common ancestor to monkeys and humans then where are they? I believe Darwin said we should be finding them.

Your right in pointing out that Darwin has said we should be finding them. Fact is we have found many one very recently, a lobed fin fish that may have been a precursor to amphibians. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
In any event the factors that are involved in becoming a fossil are so specific that over 99% of all living organisms never become fossilized at all. Most sedimentary beds that contain fossils are buried under thousands of feet of rock and may never be uncovered, and if punctuated equilibrium is correct then the transitional period may take place in small isolated populations over short periods of time making the chances that they become fossilized even more remote. A lack of a complete fossil record does not discount the theory of evolution.

The point is that it takes faith to believe in evolution. I mean just look at the language the evolutionist uses and you will see the same words the creationist uses. Words like "believe". There belief is not based on fact but theory.

This is a different kind of belief, a different kind of faith

The creationist is in the same boat so they shouldn't be upset :sad4: . You can not absolutely prove there is a "Creator" to the evolutionist. Many of the creaionists thoughts are based on faith as well.

My point exactly. the "faith" and "belief" that you say scientists have at least has the possibility that through further study and evidence the theory will become even more acceptable, the faith and belief in God can never be proven in this way.

The point is it takes faith. Picking what side of the fence you stand on is up to you. Examine the evidence and philosophies we have but no one on either side of the fence has absolute fact but both have faith.

I happen to be on both sides of the fence. I have faith that God is the creator of the universe and that he sustains that existence in being moment to moment. I also accept the theory of evolution as being an accurate description of how life developed on earth. One does not necessarily have to choose sides on this, they are not mutually exclusive. The theory of evolution does have facts to back it up, a belief in God is inherently beyond empirical "facts" since God transcends the empirical world.

 

[UnTheist]

Welcome to RF, Shortandy!

The evolutionist claim to have concrete proof but they don't.:sorry1:

Do you know when E.coli bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics? That's evolution in action. It has been observed -and proven- multiple times.:sorry1:

How can you prove that which science was unable to observe? Afterall observation is the foundation upon which science stands. How and something come from nothing, much less the order that we see from chaos? Where are the transitional forms? Not just one but the thousands upon thousands that we should be finding? If there were in fact groups of "things" that arer the common ancestor to monkeys and humans then where are they?

The likelyhood of finding transitional fossils is rare; less than 2% and all scientists are well aware of this. It, however, does not disprove evolution in the slightest. Yet there have been many transitional fossils discovered for many species. There is a link that debunks the misconception of transitional fossils, and pages of transitional fossils discovered.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

I believe Darwin said we should be finding them. The point is that it takes faith to believe in evolution. I mean just look at the language the evolutionist uses and you will see the same words the creationist uses. Words like "believe". There belief is not based on fact but theory.

This is a huge misconception made by anti-evolutionists.

The idea that organisms change overtime by random mutations and natural selection by their environment is a well-known fact. The mechanisms that drive evolution are theories.

The idea that evolution requires faith is completely non-sensical. It has mountains and oceans of evidence that undoubtedly proves evolution. There is absolutely no debate as to whether it happens or not.

 

[Draka]

The only "faith" required for an evolutionist is faith in science and fact. Evolution is a fact. It has been observed. It has been traced. There is no need for the use of the word "belief" as you phrase it. Just because we have not been physically and personally observing the evolution of man as it happened does not mean that we cannot see the effects of evolution now and find the steps that have been taken up until now. And steps have been found, regardless of your lack of knowledge about them.

As for Creationism, you seem to think it's one or the other. There are people that adhere to both. As hard as that may be for some to understand it does happen. Those who accept evolution as fact will not adhere to the strict biblical creation thought, but a more wide brush belief of evolution guided by Divine sources. Yes, that takes faith, but accepting evolution itself merely requires an analytical mind that is not hindered by adament religious thought to the contrary.

 

[Draka]

Oh, and does someone need to explain what a scientific theory is again? It is not what most people think of a theory. It does not mean something is theoretically possible or just a guess. It is a well thought-out descriptive explanation for a set of scientifically tested and proven facts. The one in red is the definition for a scientific theory...which the theory of evolution is.

the·o·ry

[SIZE=-1]NOUN: [/SIZE]
pl. [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]the·o·ries[/SIZE][/FONT]

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: [SIZE=+0]a fine musician who had never studied theory.[/SIZE]
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: [SIZE=+0]a decision based on experience rather than theory.[/SIZE]
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: [SIZE=+0]staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.[/SIZE]
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

[Shortandy]

Thanks for the replys and for welcoming me.

I understand that science has observed evolution, but which kind? They have witnessed change within a species but they have witnessed a change where something is going from one species to another therefore my original statment is still valid in that there is zero observatory proof for evolution. So it is still in a fact a theory and not absolute fact; at this point. Could it be proven? Sure but academic and logicall integrity demands that we all at least admitt that it is not proven yet. What are the facts? There is a world we live in, filled with all types of plants and animals. Many are extrodinarily complecated and some are not. The theory of evolution tries to explain the facts we have. Therefore, Draka, the statements I have do not contrict the defintions you have given.

Believe in Evolution. That is fine with me. But one can not say it is a faithless belief. You have faith that what evolutionist tell you is true, although it is not proven just like the theist has faith that what he or she has been told is fact.

 

[Draka]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/mother_of_man1.shtml

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_1.htm

Nah, no evidence or proof at all out there is there? :areyoucra :sarcastic

I could go on and on with this but I think if you look at these you will perhaps begin to get my point. The only faith I need in this is my faith in my own eyes and my faith in my ability to read and comprehend.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Thanks for the replys and for welcoming me.

I understand that science has observed evolution, but which kind? They have witnessed change within a species but they have witnessed a change where something is going from one species to another therefore my original statment is still valid in that there is zero observatory proof for evolution.

Define species

So it is still in a fact a theory and not absolute fact; at this point. Could it be proven? Sure but academic and logicall integrity demands that we all at least admitt that it is not proven yet.

Science is not about proving things as facts. Even the law of gravity is not an absolute fact, it to is subject to change. Theories in science are about intellectual assent, accepting the theory as an accurate description of reality. It does not have to be proven as fact to accept it. And yes I suppose you could call this intellectual assent 'faith' if you desire but that makes faith such a broad definition that it becomes meaningless. I have to have faith every time I turn on my computer or start my car, I have to have faith that my teacher will show up to class on time, I have to have faith in everything! I do not subscribe to such a broad definition of faith and I think that this kind of faith in science that you are referring to is a totally different kind of faith than that needed to believe in God.

Believe in Evolution. That is fine with me. But one can not say it is a faithless belief. You have faith that what evolutionist tell you is true, although it is not proven just like the theist has faith that what he or she has been told is fact.

This I do not see as faith, it is trust. Using faith in this context confuses the issue, my faith in God is so different from the trust that I put into people to tell me the truth of the matter as they see it. I really think your definition of faith is way too broad but I get the general point that your trying to get at about certainty of knowledge and epistemology. We can never really be totally certain that we know the truth of anything and in this sense we all have to live lives of 'faith'

 

[camanintx]

I understand that science has observed evolution, but which kind? They have witnessed change within a species but they have witnessed a change where something is going from one species to another therefore my original statment is still valid in that there is zero observatory proof for evolution. So it is still in a fact a theory and not absolute fact; at this point.

The problem with this statement is that species is a very subjective classification. Species are usually defined as organisms which are very similar in appearance, anatomy, physiology and genetics due to having relatively recent common ancestors. It takes many generations for organisms to diverge enough to be noticeable, but it has happened. Talkorigins has a long list of observed instances of speciation.

 

[fantome profane]

Hi Shortandy, interesting thread, but I think there are a couple things you are misunderstanding when you say that belief in evolution is faith.

We all have beliefs, and we base these beliefs of various things. A belief can be based on evidence, or a belief can be based on faith. I am not claiming that these are mutually exclusive, but they are not the same thing.

I personally believe in evolution, but I would not say I have faith in evolution. I believe in evolution because that is what the evidence indicates, and I believe only to the extent that it is proven by the evidence. My belief completely provisional. That is to say I will only believe in evolution provided that is what the evidence indicate. If the evidence indicated otherwise I would gladly change my belief.

In your posts you use terms like “concrete proof” and “absolute fact”. But what you need to understand is that such things simply don’t exist in science. I believe in evolution because the evidence indicates that this is the case. The evidence is not absolute, and neither is my belief. My belief is strong, because the evidence is strong. But my belief is open to question, evolution is open to question. I am constantly questioning the evidence for evolution (it is kind of a hobby of mine). I think that very few people would ever be willing to say that their belief in evolution was beyond question.

I don’t think this is anything like religious faith. Many people of religious faith would gladly say that their faith was beyond question, beyond doubt. Many people would say that their religious beliefs are not based on the evidence, but rather based on faith. Many would say that the evidence and their faith lead to the same beliefs, but some would even admit that their beliefs run contrary to the available evidence, but they still believe because of their faith.

I don’t think you would be able to find anyone who would say that they would believe in evolution without evidence, and you wouldn’t find anyone who would say they would believe in evolution even if the evidence contradicted it.

If you could convince me that my belief in evolution was based on faith and not evidence, I would instantly give up my belief in evolution.

 

[Runlikethewind]

fantôme profane said it best I agree 100%!!!

 

[jimbob]

The thing with evolution is, too many evolutionists go for the evolution bit, not the natural selection bit. Evolution is a quite plausible theory, however there has to be more proof. Natural selection is reality. Too many evolutionists get the two mixed up. Evolution is the one thing becoming an entirely different thing. it's like a couch becoming a chair over a matter of time. Natural selection is the changing of one thing, into the same thing with different characteristics. Natural selection is like a red couch, having it's upholstery changed so that it's a blue couch. same thing, different characteristics. Natural selection doesn't prove evolution, it proves creatures are liable to change, not into different animals entirely, just to develop different characteristics that are already in their gene pool.

This is my biggest problem. I couldn't give a rat's rear if a fish became a frog became a turtle became a bird. It's when evolutionists tell me it's because of Natural selection, i feel that they're ignorant of their own beliefs.

*edit* no offense to any evolutionists here, nothing against you, this is just coming from my own personal encounters

 

[Quiddity]

Just as you have belief that works primarily on the emperical plane and belief that is grounded on subjectivism, so to, do you have faith that works primarily on the emperical plane and faith that is grounded on subjectivism.

I have faith in the Bible, but that faith is not just grounded on things that are subjective. It takes very little extension of my faculties to have faith in historical events for example. Yet it is part of my faith to believe that the Bible was assembled in the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Who would deny such things?

 

[Draka]

The thing with evolution is, too many evolutionists go for the evolution bit, not the natural selection bit. Evolution is a quite plausible theory, however there has to be more proof. Natural selection is reality. Too many evolutionists get the two mixed up. Evolution is the one thing becoming an entirely different thing. it's like a couch becoming a chair over a matter of time. Natural selection is the changing of one thing, into the same thing with different characteristics. Natural selection is like a red couch, having it's upholstery changed so that it's a blue couch. same thing, different characteristics. Natural selection doesn't prove evolution, it proves creatures are liable to change, not into different animals entirely, just to develop different characteristics that are already in their gene pool.

This is my biggest problem. I couldn't give a rat's rear if a fish became a frog became a turtle became a bird. It's when evolutionists tell me it's because of Natural selection, i feel that they're ignorant of their own beliefs.

*edit* no offense to any evolutionists here, nothing against you, this is just coming from my own personal encounters

Natural selection is the main factor of evolution. Yes, it is the adaptation within a species to it's environment. It is hereditary changes that can overall change a species. Once that species has changed so much though, it can be classified as another species. This process is extremely slow, but it the general mechanism by which evolution happens. The two are not mutually exclusive, but are not the same thing. One is the mechanism by which the other works.

 

[jimbob]

now see Draka, that's where i'm not in cahoots with Evolutionism. Natural selection is a cornerstone for evolutionists. Darwin believed that these new developements in animals improved the animals, who in turn because more common. Indeed, a beneficial mutation would make an animal more likely to survive. Here lies the problem. Experiments and observations show that mutations tend to be harmful, not helpful. Mutations generally cause the mutated animal to be easily picked out by predators, nature, whatever. The mutations that ARE good are not NEW characteristics. Natural selection doesn't actually produce any new characteristics, it just weeds out undesirable ones. It keeps a species healthy by "suppressing mutations, not encouraging them"

Natural selection DOES produce new characteristics. DArwin proved that witht he finches on the Galapagos Islands. These finches had larger beaks then other finches. The reason was of course that these finches had been inbred with each other, causing this characteristic to become predominant. the finches may grow bigger beaks, change colors, or grow longer feather's. however, they're still finches, they're not eagles or ostriches, but finches.

i may have just used circular llogic there, but i have to go right now. i'll be back later tonight to explain my position better.

 

[camanintx]

Natural selection doesn't actually produce any new characteristics, it just weeds out undesirable ones. It keeps a species healthy by "suppressing mutations, not encouraging them"

Natural selection DOES produce new characteristics.

i'll be back later tonight to explain my position better.

Explaining your position would be very helpful.

The mutations that ARE good are not NEW characteristics.

Up until a few thousand years ago, adult humans were lactose intolerant. Then a mutation allowed some adults to continue drinking milk. Wouldn't you consider lactose tolerance a new characteristic?

 

[Runlikethewind]

Up until a few thousand years ago, adult humans were lactose intolerant. Then a mutation allowed some adults to continue drinking milk. Wouldn't you consider lactose tolerance a new characteristic?

If humans where lactose intolerant until a few thousand years ago then why do women have breasts? I am being serious here I've heard people say before that humans are not meant to drink milk or that we are naturally intolerant to lactose and such. Does not the female of our species like all mammals produce milk? Or am I just misunderstanding something here?

 

[painted wolf]

you're misunderstanding.

Adults loose the ability to digest milk, this is part of the weaning process. (one of the worst things you can give your cat is actually milk, they love the taste but can't digest it properly)
Our mutation lets us digest milk into adulthood, not only our own kind but that of other animals. Which is extra wierd because they contain "formulas"/protiens that are specific to thier species. Cow milk is intended for cows, dogs milk for dogs.

wa:do

 

[Runlikethewind]

Natural selection is a cornerstone for evolutionists. Darwin believed that these new developements in animals improved the animals, who in turn because more common. Indeed, a beneficial mutation would make an animal more likely to survive. Here lies the problem. Experiments and observations show that mutations tend to be harmful, not helpful. Mutations generally cause the mutated animal to be easily picked out by predators, nature, whatever. The mutations that ARE good are not NEW characteristics. Natural selection doesn't actually produce any new characteristics, it just weeds out undesirable ones. It keeps a species healthy by "suppressing mutations, not encouraging them" Natural selection DOES produce new characteristics.

jimbob I think you misunderstand what natural selection is. As camanintx points out there seems to be a contradiction in your use of the term. I think you might understand what it is, but your not expressing it all that well. Natural selection does not produce new characteristics and one does not need to resort to mutations to explain them either.

Variations occur naturally in any given population due to simple genetic recombination by way of reproduction. Just take a look at all the people, some are tall others short, some have dark skin others light, some are hairy others not, etc. These variations in a population don't require any mutations to come about, it's all because every time a new individual is born it is the result of a new combination of genetic material and so all individuals are different. Some of these natural variations will be better suited to the environment to survive. Darker skin in sunny climates, hairy people in cold climes, for example.

Environments change for various reasons. Maybe they change due to migration of the population to different areas, or geologic changes, or climate change, whatever the case may be. Some of the characteristics produced by natural genetic variation in populations will be better suited to the new environment.

Now say the average beak length of a population of finches is 5 inches. Then the environment changes in such a way that the longer beaks of the population are able to survive better, because they can reach the food. Naturally there is competition in the population over resources like food. Over time those with longer beaks get the food, survive and reproduce, while those with the short beaks died before they can reproduce (generally speaking). The trait of longer beaks will become more common and the average beak length will be 6 or 7 inches in that population. This is natural selection, competition and environmental factors select from natural genetic variations in a population for those characteristics which are better suited to survive. Those genes are passed on and the characteristics of that population which are better suited to survive shift to become the average. Given enough time and enough changes to all the different characteristics that a species might have, genes become more and more differentiated from the original population which may have survived relatively unchanged in a different environment (like a different island). The two populations have diverged to a point where they can no longer even reproduce, evolution.

So natural selection works on natural genetic variation to produce change over time given changes in the environment and competition over resources. I hope this clarifies the issue.

 

[Runlikethewind]

you're misunderstanding.

Adults loose the ability to digest milk, this is part of the weaning process. (one of the worst things you can give your cat is actually milk, they love the taste but can't digest it properly)
Our mutation lets us digest milk into adulthood, not only our own kind but that of other animals. Which is extra wierd because they contain "formulas"/protiens that are specific to thier species. Cow milk is intended for cows, dogs milk for dogs.

wa:do

Thanks for the clarity this always struck me as weird!