The doctrine of common ancestry or tree isn’t visualized by just thinking, it must be imagined. To believe it is a matter of faith. http://www.fcefaith.org
ABO seems to have left the discussion but could still be lurking, in any event the offshoot from this comment involved:
Several problems with your post, the biggest is that it uses a website to make your case rather than your own words, which is a violation of forum rules. It is also a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times). Third it relies on a redefinition of the word faith, and we like to use common definitions so we are talking about the same things in the same ways: it's called communication.
We do have evidence, evidence from several lines of investigation that do actually prove that common descent occurs: you are a product of common descent from your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, etcetera; this is a fact. We also have evidence of non-arbitrary speciation events where the result is two populations that cannot or don't interbreed (the definition of species) that have both evolved from their common ancestor population: this too is a fact. We also have evidence from genetic studies that show again and again that common ancestry occurs, and HAS occurred in the past.
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question.
quote:The first Church of Evolution, Author: pastor-bill
Funneling man’s focus on the sacred imaginary doctrine of the Prophet Charles Darwin. It is our calling and outreach to comfort, direct and guide those who believe they have ascended from lower animals. Only through imagination can change above species be seen . As we evolve together in the knowledge of those sacred writings dilivered to the Prophet Charles Darwin, it is our hope that Natural Selection will shine on you.
Nuff said: someone with no clue to what evolution is, who has no training in biology and who is so myopic they can only see the world through the hazy lenses of religion. A card carrying member of the Cult of Ignorance. Someone who will lie to you to sell you a book.
We do have evidence, evidence from several lines of investigation that do actually prove that common descent occurs: you are a product of common descent from your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, etcetera; this is a fact.
I agree.
We also have evidence of non-arbitrary speciation events where the result is two populations that cannot or don't interbreed (the definition of species) that have both evolved from their common ancestor population: this too is a fact. We also have evidence from genetic studies that show again and again that common ancestry occurs,
I agree.
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (non invalidated) to date.
I agree.
However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question.
How is your faith that because we have this much evidence and that since we are here it had to happen.
Any different from my faith?
That we have all this evidence that you and I believe in. But I believe that God created everything and then all these changes took place.
How is your faith that because we have this much evidence and that since we are here it had to happen.
The same reason that you can be removed from jury service if you express that you believe the defendant did it before hearing the evidence. We don't accept faith in convicting criminals, we only accept conclusions drawn from evidence that are beyond reasonable doubt. We do this, because we have noted that it is the most reliable way of arriving at truths about the world.
We can have faith that this system is the best one we have - but that faith is too founded in evidence: this same system of evidence has provided us with wonderful technology and consistent histories.
Still, as Descartes pointed out: Everything has to be taken with some degree of faith other than 'I am'. Believing that my table exists external to my mind is a far cry from believing the tooth fairy exchanges children's baby teeth for cash. The table only relies on the assumptions that allow us to function on a daily basis (the world is real etc etc). Those same assumptions lead us to conclude natural history in the way we do.
Having faith in the supernatural world requires additional faith since there is no testable evidence to lend it any credence. We can quite literally make anything we like up if it is a supernatural entity, so there is no telling what supernatural things are real and what are made up. Faith in the religious sense is arbitrarily picking some supernatural ideas up and rejecting others. It is this arbitrariness that makes it stand out from faith in the real world and conclusions drawn from it.
We look at the evidence and there is only one solution that stands out. Evolution. If we include supernatural possibilities there could be as many different solutions as our imagination allows.
Faith in the religious sense is basically a cultural tradition that has decided which supernatural entities to believe are real without any other reason than because our elders told us that this was so.
Even with the evidence stacked against it: Allowing cultural tradition determine what is real and what is not in the supernatural has shown constant changes, as if cultural tradition was a rubbish way of deciding which supernatural entities are real.
Hi Modulous, did you read RAZD'S post I was responding to?
RAZD writes:
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question.
RAZD says it takes faith but his faith is different from mine.
I wanted to know why he thought his faith was different to mine as I had just agreed with all the evidence he had put forth.
I believe God created everything and is in control. I believe that the hypothesis will be substantiated by fact in the future.
Would you care to explain the difference using RAZD'S definition from Message 1 highlited in yellow.
quote:belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
BTW
Having faith in the supernatural world requires additional faith since there is no testable evidence to lend it any credence.
At present there are 107 tests per minute that proves or disproves God exists. The only problem the one doing the experiment has to die to preform the test. One day you and I will preform that test.
I wanted to know why he thought his faith was different to mine as I had just agreed with all the evidence he had put forth.
I believe God created everything and is in control. I believe that the hypothesis will be substantiated by fact in the future.
Because in science, theories are based on evidence and the predictions of those theories are not accepted without question: rather they are severely questioned.
Your belief is without evidence and is unquestioned. You admit this with the last sentence quoted.
No I cannot see the difference you are questioning my theory now.
But you aren't, that makes your faith different from mine.
Your evidence is hoped for in the future, my evidence is in the past and what the hypothesis is built on.
I am not, strictly speaking, "hoping that the facts will prove my hypothesis in the future" but that new evidence will not invalidate it OR that a better theory comes along. It may be possible that there was no universal common ancestor population, but a group of similar derived life forms, as some evidence points in that direction. Several of these pre-biotic systems may have come together to form the first life (as we define -- badly -- it).
Nor is science waiting for the answer, but they are looking for it. Religions are NOT looking. A fairly good overview of the current search is at:
Note the number of theories involved, each one given is possible, so there is no ONE theory that hopes are based on. Notice that they also discuss the problems with the different models.
Your evidence is hoped for in the future, my evidence is in the past and what the hypothesis is built on.
RAZD writes:
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question.
Yes I said faith, but I also drew a distinction between the kind of faith needed and religious faith: that is the split hair of the issue, not that faith is not involved but that it is NOT religious faith.
(A) religious faith: absolute, not evidence based, not questioned (B) non-religious faith: tentative, evidence based, questioned
If there were more words perhaps the semantics would be clearer.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
BUT the reality is that one is different from the other by the degree of faith and by the kind of faith involved. Equating them is equivocating on those differences.
For the scientific faith the hypothesis, based on evaluation of the available evidence, is tentative, subject to change (falsification), and until invalidating evidence is encountered OR a better theory comes along, it is tentatively taken as the best reasonable answer. It is NOT taken as the absolute must be true answer, and often the problems with the hypothesis, the reasons it could be invalid are also documented (this is where falsification tests come in to play). It is possible, in fact, to hold that two or more theories could be valid even though they are contradictory. The scientist could have equal faith in contradictory theories.
Whereas for the religious faith the hypothesis, based on no evidence, that God (A) exists, is taken on absolute faith as being absolutely true and not subject to change. Often this faith leads to denial of evidence that contradicts the beliefs involve, such as the age of the earth and whether the sun orbits the earth or the other way around. It is also not possible to believe in two contradictory religions, and thus there IS a fundamental difference in the degree and kind of faith.
To reach the level of faith that is used in science, religious faith has to give up certainty in dogma and documents and belief, and base it's hypothesis on the level of evidence that forms the basis for the original hypothesis. It has to accept that other religions are equally valid and possible.
The only religious faith that I am aware of that comes anywhere close to this level is deism. IMH(ysa)O. No dogma, no certainty other than non-falsifiable belief in {some god - or gods - somewhere: a relatively tentative concept}. Thus there is still a leap of faith even with deism that is missing in science. If you cannot show that science faith matches that of Deism then you have no case to assert that it matches any more formalized, ritualized, dogmatized religion.
I like using the word “confidence” rather than “faith” in scientific discussions.
That's fine, but it is just a semantic shell game, and the question at hand is how much faith is involved in science. Thus changing the terms is not addressing the question.
Or are you saying that there is absolutely no faith (definition #2) involved?
Or are you saying that there is absolutely no faith (definition #2) involved?
This is where my concrete and literal reductionist tendencies come into play. I do not see this as a semantic shell game. To me “faith” is used in its classical sense as “belief/trust without evidence,” while a level of “confidence” is dependant upon the level of evidence.
In actuality I have no faith in anything.
I have a good level of confidence in cartographers’ placement of Ulan Baatar on the world map, though I’ve never been there, because I have evidence and experience that these guys these days are seldom too far off. I would not accept that placement on faith.
I have confidence in some of my peoples’ ability to perform assigned tasks because I have evidence that they have done so in the past. Faith would be a disaster in this arena since failure to perform up to the level of my faith would have nasty consequences for all concerned.
I have confidence in the scientific method because I use it, I see others use it and I have seen and experienced the result of its power.
I have confidence in the Theory of Evolution because I have read the literature, recognise the grounding in basic principles, recognise the logic and the use of scientific methodologies. I also am confident, not faithful, that if some nuance or other is not quite right, someone will point this out and it will eventually be corrected.
I have no confidence in faith because the evidence I have shows that such faith is based on emotion, much without reason, and in most cases turns out to be tragically wrong.
ABE: Let me be specific. The word "faith" as used in the popular vernacular has no place in a scientific discussion (except as a topic). It only leads to the confusion evidenced by the previous few messages in this thread.
Let us take up the discussion here with my response to AZPaul3
This is where my concrete and literal reductionist tendencies come into play. I do not see this as a semantic shell game. To me “faith” is used in its classical sense as “belief/trust without evidence,” while a level of “confidence” is dependant upon the level of evidence.
In actuality I have no faith in anything.
You are an atheist, in spite of no falsification test for the existence of a god, you believe in the result.
I have a good level of confidence in cartographers’ placement of Ulan Baatar on the world map, though I’ve never been there, because I have evidence and experience that these guys these days are seldom too far off. I would not accept that placement on faith.
You just did. Maps are known to be wrong. To quote Jimmy Buffet "the best Navigator is one who is not sure until they get there, and even then they are not positive." In addition:
Looks a lot like the definitions for faith. Fundamentalist can also have confidence in their God. Synonyms for faith are:
It's a semantic shell game to use a synonym. The question is how much faith there is in science (not just Darwinism) and it is best to deal with the question honestly and front faced, IMH(ysa)O.
ABE: Let me be specific. The word "faith" as used in the popular vernacular has no place in a scientific discussion (except as a topic). It only leads to the confusion evidenced by the previous few messages in this thread.
This is equivocation on the definition of faith - your "used in the popular vernacular" is not restricted to definition #2.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added material
Faith and Belief Forum please
Edited by RAZD, : /
Edited by RAZD, : formating to distinguish quoted posts from posting here, adding in a missing message, finish confidence definition
™ Version 4.2