Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Faith: Where do you place it?

Assupmtion 1: There has been no conclusive evidence that the theory of evolution is completely true. Evolutionists will even tell you that there are holes and that is why it is only a theory. The model surely provides some usefulness in application, but it is admittedly not rock solid. Until we come up with something better, this is the best we've got from the perspective of Science.

Queston: If you cannot explain the areas of evolution that are unexplainable by the science community at large, then is this not putting your faith into something? Are you not making a leap of logic? A leap of faith that this is true? Doesn't this place you on par with the religious so far as faith goes? How can you continue to say your faith in science is more qualified than religious faith in God?

Does this not apply to everything encompassed by science, and not just evolution? Can you admit that your faith is in science and that is open to the same scrutiny as faith in God? no slander please

Update:

Good answers so far. Some clarifications: I don't personally believe the Theory of Evolution should be thrown out because it has holes in it. As I said above, it is the best scientific theory we have at the moment. I do like Doug's answer that the difference is that science is able to at some point cover up the missing pieces. I tend to agree but not in full. As a student of science and in studying scientific theory I have learned the areas that inherently cannot be defined by science. They are pieces of the physical world that exist outside of the human tool of science and therefore, cannot define them. The first two I don't think are rock solid, but the third I am convinced science inherently cannot research. These are not my own conclusions, but only a report of what the scientific theorists have concluded to be outside the realm of human science:

Update 2:

1) The human consciousness: Science is a human tool and therefore is limited by the perspective of human experience. While science is able to look at the human consciousness and infer data, it cannot find the answer as to how human consciousness developed. It can look at the biochemical pathways and anatomy and psychology and thus, discover how it works and generalize a theory of its beginning. However, since humans are the ultimate conductors of the experiment we cannot rise above our own consciousness to discover the root of our consciousness.

Update 3:

2) Beginning of life - While we can manipulate DNA and RNA and, indeed, even in a lab take raw lifeless material and create life out of it using the same environment believed to be found during life's beginning, we must admit that this is merely taking what is in nature and letting it do the work. Since human science does not exist outside the realm of life it can only describe life after the first moment of its inception. It can only recreate that inception, but cannot create that inception if you understand me correctly. Scientists don't struggle with the idea of defining everything in life after the first point of existence. Science theorists find it may well be impossible for science to define just what is the relationship of that inorganic material to the organic material and why it causes life.

Update 4:

3) The beginning of the universe - Science exists within the physical universe and therefore can explain anything within the physical universe. This is after the poin 0 seconds on the time scale of the universe. Unfortunately, at 0 seconds is when the first thing got moving. Science cannot tell us what happened before the universe began and how it got ready to begin, or even the first moment of its beginning. It can only describe what happens after everything began. And all it infers from the universe in a mission to discover the beginning will only show what happened just after 0 seconds on the time line. This is because all the info we are using to determine the beginning is from stuff that was only there and existed after the beginning.

So if you believe that the science community has trouble with these things, perhaps faith is involved in that which science cannot discover.

Update 5:

Here is some more info if you don't believe that scientists themselves believe what I just told you.

http://www.mediaresources.eku.edu/streaming/lectur...

all are good, but particularly listen to Dr. Nelson's talk. I assure you he is not religious. I know him personally.

And to the ignoramous that believes I just copied and pasted something from my priest or 'ID' (whatever that is) I didn't. This is info purely from my university studies. I attended a state school with no religious affiliations. I also want to correct your ignorance further, that a priest will tell you that evolution and creationism are both true. The holes in evolution that is believed to have no paint that will ultimately cover it up is filled in with accounts of creationism. You must come to grips that creationism isn't just what the fundamentalists are defining. Catholicism believes evolution has some proof and must be considered, however, it cannot prove the development of a soul.

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 decades ago
    Favorite Answer

    Okay... stop quoting your priests and ID supporters.

    A theory is the explanation to why a phenomena occurs. A theory is the highest status such a thing can become. Laws are not in the same group as theories, so a theory (such as the THEORY of gravity) could never become a law. A law is the explanation of a phenomena but doesn't explain why the phenomena occurs.

    Because the Theory of Evolution is so often disputed it has become one of the best tested theories EVER. Your looking at 100 years of criticism followed by testing. Yes the theory has changed, but that makes it no less stronger.

    Now onto your question. Yes, there is an assumption involved, I wouldn't quite consider a "leap of faith" if anything it's a "bunny hop of faith." Your faith in god is a "leap in faith" but it is also untestable, whereas every part of evolution is testable, and plus the scientists involved don't simply deny any criticism flung at them. While each part of evolution has become more rigorously tested and as we find the tools to test it more we are shrinking the "gap of faith." Priests seem to have neglected to test and research their study so as evolution becomes more credible, you are still stuck with creationism.

  • 2 decades ago

    Say a painter has painted a picture of a sunrise: he's got most of it done, but every once in a while he notices that a little daub of paint - just there - will make it more complete.

    Well, scientists are the painters of evolution, the picture is the theory, and the added daubs of paint are the refinements to the theory that make it more clear.

    Just because it is as yet incomplete doesn't mean the whole painting should be thrown out, and substituted with a blank canvas.

  • 2 decades ago

    Well said, and the answer is yes and no.

    With a theory, EVERYONE is making a leap of faith by assuming its 100% true. Similar to religion except that theories are based on evidence. Religion is based on assumption that rumor is true.

    With scientific fact, that we have not experience ourselves, YES we are making a leap of faith just like religion. We're assuming that a rumor is true. For example, I have faith that the moon is 100's of thousands of miles away...I'm not going to the trouble of proving it. The difference is if I choose to, I COULD prove it. So, its faith, but verifiable enough to be taken as fact.

    With religion, you have no evidence other than, "I can't figure out an alternative". That doesn't mean religion is automatically wrong, but it involves no investigation to verify.

    So, science is not just like religion but DOES require some faith.

  • 2 decades ago

    I place my faith in Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour. And by the way, I'm convinced (I don't assume) that there is no conclusive evidence for evolution. All the evidence, when viewed without preconceived ideas, will support the Genesis account of creation.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2 decades ago

    On solid ground...God's Word.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.