Jun
12
2006
Actually, rather than write more about evolution, I thought I’d just take a cop out path instead.
After the power cut, I came across this site:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html. This guy has a more comprehensive version of my arguments, plus extra material (the evolution of the eye) and some great links.
June 13th, 2006 at 11:37 am
While evolutionary & ambiogenic theories do go hand in hand with the aethiests view of the history of the universe, I still believe that there is no logical arguement that can disprove either creationism or evolution/ambiogenesis. Both camps will bring their arguements for why they believe their approach is correct, as you have done here for evolution.
However once again for the sake of critical thinking & the devil’s advocate, there is no way to disproove either. Obviously evolution can not be disprooved as there certainly appears to be evidence of it. Creationism can also not be disproved for the following reason. Imagine you are an all powerful being that for what ever reason wants to test the faith of your creations, well if that was me I would certainly have designed tests for my creations, such as an apparent evolutionary line stretching back millions of years. If this was the case then all scientific evidence would be based on somthing that was created by somthing they can not yet explain or understand.
I take both approaches with a grain of salt, and consider both evolution and creationism to be matters of faith. And like in your previous post about religious tollerance I believe people should take on a similar opinion of tollerance with regard to what ever people choose to put their faith in albeit faith in science, or faith in somthing supernatural.
June 13th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Well, the definition of faith is irrational belief. So I have to disagree that science and religion are equally matters of faith. Science is founded on rationality.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious theory and one of the primary requirements of a theory is that it is falsifiable. It can never be proved correct, but it can always be proved wrong. (I don’t know how one could logically prove it wrong, but it could certainly be empirically proved wrong.) To date however, all the evidence that has been amassed hasn’t proved it wrong. It’s been modified and extended a couple of times since Darwin first proposed it, to incorporate our new knowledge of genes etc, but none of the evidence has has falsified the theory.
I am happy if someone says “I understand that there is no evidence for my belief in creationism, but I believe it anyway”. That’s the definition of faith. There’s nothing inherently wrong with having a belief based on faith.
What annoys me is when they try to argue that creationism is a science, and try to give “Intelligent Design” the same status as the theory of evolution. Intelligent Design is just not scientific. The available evidence contracticts it, and there is no way (even theoretically) to disprove it.
I have no problem whatsoever with people believing in creationism. Everybody has the right to believe what they like. But I do have a problem with them trying to say that their belief is rational and scientific. It is not. It is based on faith, and I think they would be better of just acknowledging that. You literally cannot argue with a position like that.
(My post on using the bible to prove the bible had similar underpinnings. I think that belief in god, the resurrection and the truth of the bible are things best accepted on faith)
June 13th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
I don’t have access to the OED and I presume that is what you are using, however I do have a dictionary that defines faith as:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
In agreement with the rankings shown above, when talking about having faith in somthing I would believe that most people would take (1.) as their definition. For example I have faith that water will boil at 100C at 1Atmosphere is a clear example of 1. Using that definition of faith I believe my comparison is perfectly valid
June 13th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
I am using the second definition. I think I’ve picked up the terminology from many of the discussion forums and websites, which use faith to refer to a conviction held without logical proof or evidence, and rational/justified belief to refer to a conviction held based on logical proof or evidence. (BTW, I’ve seen people on both sides of the argument use this terminology – it’s not intended to be value laden.)
Wikipedia has an article about this use of faith and rationality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality. I think I’m a rationalist.
By the first definition, I do indeed have faith in the theory of evolution. However, I happen to think that my faith in evolution, and your faith in the boiling point of water have better justification than a faith in creationism.
June 13th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Often atheists make the mistake of assuming that religious people use religion to explain things they don’t understand (so called God of the gaps). Since science is tasked with gaining knowledge and understanding about things we don’t understand, science is often seen as the antithesis (or even the antidote) to religion.
Religion doesn’t aim to explain “how”, otherwise, the Bible and other religious books would be filled with half-baked explanations of natural phenomenon (yes, I freely admit, the Bible has some of that). Instead, religion looks to why.
Over the years we have developed scientific theory that can reasonably accurately explain the phenomenon of how gravity works. We’re still at a loss as to why. The best answer science can offer for why things turned out the way they did is the weak anthropic principle.
We ask of science “why did it happen like this” and science says: “because if it didn’t then you couldn’t ask that question”. We ask of religion and religion says “because a benevolent being consciously chose for things to be like this, it is all by design, even though you may not know what it is”. Some of us are content with the former answer and some of us prefer the latter.
I believe religion is about trust. We all trust in something. Some people trust in their eyes, but you know your eyes are imperfect. Some people trust in their minds, but our minds play tricks on us. Some people trust in others and we all know how dangerous that can be. I trust in science and the scientific method, it does not mean there is no space for God. God is the chief scientist since He made the rules we’re only just figuring out.