Replies

Your regular posting of definitions is handy and appreciated, but it does not support the assertion there is a substantial difference between the theory of evolution and the scientific model of intelligent design. Both entail legitimate science. As for the definition of "faith" with which you tend to operate, it is not the primary meaning of faith. I'd be hard pressed to find people who believe things entirely without evidence.

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. Certainly the word can be used in a sense that entails "something for which there is no evidence or logical proof." In the case of intelligent design, however, there is an ample supply of organized matter to serve as evidence. In the case of evolution there is no "logical proof," but a fair amount of reasonable inference.

But who believes in something with absolutely no evidence? Even those who truly believe in the Tooth Fairy do not believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. For them the evidence rests first of all in the statement - from a trustworthy source - that there is a Tooth Fairy. Add the experience of mysteriously receiving some coin in exchange for a loose tooth, and the "evidence" becomes more compelling. What is more, it cannot be scientifically proven there is no such thing as a Tooth Fairy. It can only be reasonably inferred from lack of evidence, either direct or indirect.

In the case of organized matter the evidence is not fake, nor is it meager. In the case of various species that have morphological similarities yet undergo change from generation to generation the evidence is not fake, but it is more limited. These are both scientifically accessible phenomena from which reasonable inferences can be drawn.