Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Airwinger

you know it’s funny, Evos attack our concepts saying that they are based only on beliefs, and “beliefs are not science” but, the TOE is based primarily on theories which are based on theories, based on fossils that are themselves based in theory, but the fact that they believe these theories without and valid evidence is not viewed as “beliefs” I think it takes more faith to believe in the TOE than it does to believe in an all powerful creator. In short, if you don’t believe what we believe then it’s just not science.


305 posted on 02/07/2008 4:32:48 PM PST by whispering out loud (the bible is either 100% true, or in it's very nature it is 100% a lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: whispering out loud
you know it’s funny, Evos attack our concepts saying that they are based only on beliefs, and “beliefs are not science” but, the TOE is based primarily on theories which are based on theories, based on fossils that are themselves based in theory, but the fact that they believe these theories without and valid evidence is not viewed as “beliefs” I think it takes more faith to believe in the TOE than it does to believe in an all powerful creator. In short, if you don’t believe what we believe then it’s just not science.

Sorry, that is not correct.

The theory of evolution is based on evidence (data, facts, or observations). The evidence in turn is explained by the theory. And the that theory is tested each time new evidence is found--a new fossil skull, new DNA results, or new dating results, for example. The discovery of DNA was a major test for the theory of evolution, as was radiometric dating. The theory passed those tests as it has passed 150 years of tests.

Because of its basis in evidence, the theory of evolution does not require faith. When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

I studied this field for a number of years in graduate school, and I have seen a lot of the evidence for myself. It is not as it is often portrayed by creationists, a house of cards waiting only for a small push to fall in on itself. Most of the evidence has never reached the popular press--there is just too much of it. It is "hidden away" in the technical journals, taking up floors and floors of our good science libraries and museums.

It doesn't take faith to "believe in" a fossil like Sts 5 (Mrs. Ples) when you have handled a cast of the skull for several hours, and examined a number of other finds from the same site; along with dozens and dozens of other specimens from the same general area. By the time you finish a few years of this kind of study you are working from knowledge, not faith.

306 posted on 02/07/2008 5:52:17 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson