Do Scientists Have "Faith" in the Same Sense some Christians do?

[Grandliseur]

Define kinds.

I don't think I need to be that specific. It is somewhat self-explanatory.

If I tell you that at the Zoo there are many different kinds of animals, would you say that a male and female lion are one kind or two kinds if their place is next to bears, elephants, and hyenas?!
If I tell you there are many different kinds of cars sold in at the car sales plot, it should be obvious not all the cars are Ford Escort's.

 

[Father]

Scientist does not imply agnostic/atheist/deist.

A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.

there are Catholic Scientists. Buddhist Scientists. I would say Muslim scientists but most of them are dead or will be.

however, a requirement of science is separating personal dogma and not having it affect your observation or experiments even if they contradict your own personal ego.

most scientists though tend to be agnostic/atheist/deist as most who wish to learn the Truth know it's not found in a 2000-year-old text. but beneath there feet in their bodies and in the heavens *metaphorical* above

 

[DavidFirth]

No it's not.

What are you saying 'is not'?

 

[DavidFirth]

Evolution is no different from the theory that earth moves round the sun,established as true long before we put satellites in space.. precisely because there are lots of evidence for both theories and both theories have made enormous number of successful predictions that have been vindicated through experiment and observation.

But not macro-evolution over millions of years.

 

[sayak83]

But not macro-evolution over millions of years.

Existence of fossil species with intermediate features between currently living groups was a prediction of evolution made by Darwin based on macroevolutionary hypothesis. There was no evidence for this then, but today such intermediate groups have been uncovered in their thousands.

 

[sayak83]

What are you saying 'is not'?

Not faith based assumptions but evidence based conclusions.

 

[sayak83]

I don't think I need to be that specific. It is somewhat self-explanatory.

If I tell you that at the Zoo there are many different kinds of animals, would you say that a male and female lion are one kind or two kinds if their place is next to bears, elephants, and hyenas?!
If I tell you there are many different kinds of cars sold in at the car sales plot, it should be obvious not all the cars are Ford Escort's.

Biologists do have a name for this. It's called species. So tigers and lions are different species. Is your kind the same as species?

 

[Grandliseur]

Biologists do have a name for this. It's called species. So tigers and lions are different species. Is your kind the same as species?

I know, but that is where the problem begins, and ends. The difference between biblical and non-biblical nomination here is beyond the pale.

In Genesis, the Bible uses the word 'kind.' We have the word cat and use this to refer to many different animals, lions, tigers, leopards, and our small feline friends. In the Bible, if these animals all descend from on parent animal, they would be one kind. In Africa, we have many different types of antelope, but it seems as if many are simply variations on one parent animal, as we see in dogs where there is a huge variety of types of dogs, though they all may originate with one single parent dog. one kind, be it wolf, or whatever this parent was.

It is therefore an assumption that at times, a species is the same as a kind, an other times not. Since the usage of the words kind and species don't have the same origin or usage, I cannot define clearly what is not provided information for.

Just for fun, here is the link for Puma: >Puma (genus) - Wikipedia<

If you look at the definitions on the right side of the page under its picture, you can see that the way science does things today has no correspondence to the simple 'kind' we were given.
Quoting Wiki:

A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. While this definition is often adequate, when looked at more closely it is problematic. For example, with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, or in a ring species, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear. Other ways of defining species include similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche.
Species - Wikipedia​

I don't think a kind needs to be able to reproduce sexually. If our house-cat bred from a common ancestor as the other large cats, they would be one kind--which may be why we call all of them cats! However, the little house-cat surely cannot interbreed with a tiger, or a lion. Since you say that tigers and lions are different species, and I would say they are one kind, originating from one parent kind in the past, already the problem is becoming clear.

 

[Laika]

Some fantastic posts @Vouthon . Its rare we get that level of depth on RF when dealing with "faith versus facts" debates, so I'm only too happy to see it. Good on you!

 

[sayak83]

I know, but that is where the problem begins, and ends. The difference between biblical and non-biblical nomination here is beyond the pale.

In Genesis, the Bible uses the word 'kind.' We have the word cat and use this to refer to many different animals, lions, tigers, leopards, and our small feline friends. In the Bible, if these animals all descend from on parent animal, they would be one kind. In Africa, we have many different types of antelope, but it seems as if many are simply variations on one parent animal, as we see in dogs where there is a huge variety of types of dogs, though they all may originate with one single parent dog. one kind, be it wolf, or whatever this parent was.

It is therefore an assumption that at times, a species is the same as a kind, an other times not. Since the usage of the words kind and species don't have the same origin or usage, I cannot define clearly what is not provided information for.

Just for fun, here is the link for Puma: >Puma (genus) - Wikipedia<

If you look at the definitions on the right side of the page under its picture, you can see that the way science does things today has no correspondence to the simple 'kind' we were given.
Quoting Wiki:

A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. While this definition is often adequate, when looked at more closely it is problematic. For example, with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, or in a ring species, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear. Other ways of defining species include similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche.
Species - Wikipedia​

I don't think a kind needs to be able to reproduce sexually. If our house-cat bred from a common ancestor as the other large cats, they would be one kind--which may be why we call all of them cats! However, the little house-cat surely cannot interbreed with a tiger, or a lion. Since you say that tigers and lions are different species, and I would say they are one kind, originating from one parent kind in the past, already the problem is becoming clear.

So.. your word kind is vague and useless? In your Biblical theory, did lions, tigers, leopards, cheetah and forest cats created separately or derived from a single common ancestor? What did this ancestor look like? How far back was this ancestor? In what order did the division happen? And Word usage is hardly definitive as it varies widely among different languages. For example, dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes are scientifically considered all the same family but there is no common English term for them. Similarly common terms like birds or fish group almost everything with feathers and water dwelling scales respectively. Can your Biblical kind hypothesis predict what to expect if we look back into the fossil records of dogs or cat family?

The word species is quite clear however. Reproductive isolation is not an on/off thing. If, however, the rate of successful fertile hybridization between species is above 5%, very simple calculations, bolstered by experiments, show that the two groups would inevitably merge into a single species if they encounter each other often enough. Hence they can't be classified as different species. Otherwise, they are different species.

 

[osgart]

faith is complete trust and confidence in something. nothing more nothing less.

many scientists have complete faith that evolution is fact, some do not.

religious people hold that true reasoning is a form of evidence. by reasoning with what they see in reality they come to what they would call knowledge, and thus put faith in their sincere reasoning if reality doesn't defy their reasoning. in other words you can come to a knowledge of the truth by reasoning from the right source of truth.

so honest reasoning leads to true answers for religious people.


​

 

[Grandliseur]

Similarly common terms like birds or fish group almost everything with feathers and water dwelling scales respectively

There is no reason to be obtuse; we call all these organisms animals, that doesn't mean they are one kind. If evolutionist devoted the kind of effort and time to follow the biblical viewpoint, perhaps our true knowledge would be greater by a huge amount rather than the fictional charts that exist now.

With the kind of DNA technology we have, shouldn't it be possible to determine with some probable accuracy if a house-cat and the larger felines came from one ancestor parent couple?! Of course, nobody does this to explain creation, only evolution gets a focus. Too bad.

Evolutionist seem to claim all the variations and mutations for their belief system. The easiest way to demonstrate that God has permitted great variety and adjustments to environments is by looking at foxes, bears, owls of the north. Every animal type changes in small but important ways that permit them better to survive. This is claimed by evolutionist to be proof of their faith; instead, it proves how great a designer God is, how great a programmer he is.

There is very little gained by creationists and evolutionists arguing about things neither are going to accept. However, Richard Milton's Shattering the Myths of Darwinism is an interesting book to read.

If I recall, Hinduism has its own creation account; if memory serves, it is not evolution.

 

[DavidFirth]

Existence of fossil species with intermediate features between currently living groups was a prediction of evolution made by Darwin based on macroevolutionary hypothesis. There was no evidence for this then, but today such intermediate groups have been uncovered in their thousands.

Fact: Fossils were found.
Assumption: They have intermediate features and are therefore intermediate forms.

 

[DavidFirth]

Not faith based assumptions but evidence based conclusions.

Your conclusions are based on hypothetical assumptions and are therefore invalid conclusions. You must assume they're valid, you cannot prove they are.

 

[sayak83]

There is no reason to be obtuse; we call all these organisms animals, that doesn't mean they are one kind. If evolutionist devoted the kind of effort and time to follow the biblical viewpoint, perhaps our true knowledge would be greater by a huge amount rather than the fictional charts that exist now.

With the kind of DNA technology we have, shouldn't it be possible to determine with some probable accuracy if a house-cat and the larger felines came from one ancestor parent couple?! Of course, nobody does this to explain creation, only evolution gets a focus. Too bad.

Evolutionist seem to claim all the variations and mutations for their belief system. The easiest way to demonstrate that God has permitted great variety and adjustments to environments is by looking at foxes, bears, owls of the north. Every animal type changes in small but important ways that permit them better to survive. This is claimed by evolutionist to be proof of their faith; instead, it proves how great a designer God is, how great a programmer he is.

There is very little gained by creationists and evolutionists arguing about things neither are going to accept. However, Richard Milton's Shattering the Myths of Darwinism is an interesting book to read.

If I recall, Hinduism has its own creation account; if memory serves, it is not evolution.

Hinduism creation theology is evolution through progressive differentiation of the one Brahman into multiple shapes and forms. We expect evolution to be its visible consequence in the material world.

You do realize that biologists do the indeed know that house cats and tigers come from the same ancestral cat-like species millions of years ago via the process of evolution. We have plenty of fossil evidence to prove this. Scientists reject Biblical creation myth because no creationists can tell them what to expect in the fossil record if it were true and secondly because evolutionary theory does predict what to expect and those predictions come out to be true.

I have no interest in reading a book that I consider dishonest pseudoscience. However if you wish to discuss a specific argument from that book, we can do this.

 

[sayak83]

Your conclusions are based on hypothetical assumptions and are therefore invalid conclusions. You must assume they're valid, you cannot prove they are.

You haven't told me what these supposedly unevidenced hypothetical assumptions are

 

[sayak83]

Fact: Fossils were found.
Assumption: They have intermediate features and are therefore intermediate forms.

Theory:- Animals Start from common ancestors that have, over time diverged in modern different groups through evolution.

Prediction:- Fossils with features intermediate between every major living animal groups with hard parts will be found, with further later fossils showing more and more features of modern animal groups.

Later observation:- Fossils with features intermediate between major animal groups are found for almost every group, with progressive approach towards modern features in more recent fossils

Conclusion:- The prediction made by evolution vindicated. Hence truth of evolution is based on successful predictions and not hypothesis.

I see no assumptions here.

 

[corynski]

The theory of evolution is entirely based on faith if one assumes it is correct. It has not been proven correct and probably cannot be. One must believe it is truth on faith.

Perhaps an example could be made using the chapter in the Bible regarding Joshua, saying to God, "O sun, stand still over Gibeon", and the sun and the moon "stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down by a full day." Science will tell us that this didn't happen, and will provide records of observations over time, and all the data proving the earth goes around the sun, not vice-versa... evidence that can be evaluated by anyone and everyone. What evidence do you offer for the faith based notion that appears in the Bible? How about other humans living around the world at the same time, maybe the Mayas or Incas, or whoever else was living at the time, surely they would have recorded something, even if they didn't know that the earth rotates about the sun, not the opposite.
"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." Attributed to Ferdinand Magellan. The church, apparently 'believed', and wanted the earth to be the center of everything for some reason, so they declared it so. Magellan simply submits his scientific observations for you to evaluate. Belief and science......

 

[Grandliseur]

Hinduism creation theology is evolution through progressive differentiation of the one Brahman into multiple shapes and forms. We expect evolution to be its visible consequence in the material world.

You do realize that biologists do the indeed know that house cats and tigers come from the same ancestral cat-like species millions of years ago via the process of evolution. We have plenty of fossil evidence to prove this. Scientists reject Biblical creation myth because no creationists can tell them what to expect in the fossil record if it were true and secondly because evolutionary theory does predict what to expect and those predictions come out to be true.

I have no interest in reading a book that I consider dishonest pseudoscience. However if you wish to discuss a specific argument from that book, we can do this.

It serves no purpose. A bridge cannot be made that will cross the expanse between our different philosophies.

Such discussions should take place between PhDs from both camps. I have seen a lot of dishonest pseudoscience from evolutionists clearly shown by people in our camps. So. . .
Again, no purpose.

 

[sayak83]

It serves no purpose. A bridge cannot be made that will cross the expanse between our different philosophies.

Such discussions should take place between PhDs from both camps. I have seen a lot of dishonest pseudoscience from evolutionists clearly shown by people in our camps. So. . .
Again, no purpose.

Well, I am happy to discuss this with any PhD creationists anywhere in the forum. Please invite one. Also I am happy to discuss any claims of scientific dishonesty of evolutionary biologists you want to present.