radagast

True but a red-herring.

Virtually nothing in Science is proven. Preponderance of evidence is what is the rational position to take. Could it be wrong, yes. Is it reasonable to accept a position with weaker evidence, no.

Incorrect. Assumptions, within science, are extremely basic.
Like: All other scientists are not conspiring to fool us.
Like: The universe was not created yesterday, running, complete with memory and histories intact.

Scientific theories, on the other hand, are things that require mountains of scientific evidence, and peer review to become accepted by the scientific community at large.


Outcome of experiments, or the finding of evidence (eg fossils), or some other thing that can stand up to examination by others with no stake in the outcome.

When evidence is contradictory, then, assuming both have good methodologies, further data/experiments/etc. are needed.

In evolutionary terms, predictions are made, in terms of what evidence we should find. Confirmation of said predictions helps confirm the original thesis.

Much like predictions of what we should find, based on the theory of relativity, then when they are found, how it helps further support for that theory.


Eliminate belief as a function of determining the truth or falsity of a particular theory. E.G. a counter example: Certain anti-evolutionary 'scientific' establishments require all members to sign a statement that they will always side with their biblical interpretation, no matter what the evidence found is. This is an example of how belief will interfere with finding truth.


Regards,
Glenn

PoodleLovinPessimist

Sorry, I missed that. It's a pet peeve of mine that some non-theists use "belief" as a synonym of "faith". We have a perfectly good word for faith ("faith"), and "belief" is a perfectly good a word to represent an idea actually believed on whatever basis.

I use "faith" (when speaking precisely) to mean "belief without evidence or proof" (which really should be further disambiguated as "belief with neither evidence nor proof"). Believing a theory because it is supported by evidence is not "belief without evidence", so no, there's not any sort of faith there.

PoodleLovinPessimist

This is my point; sorry for not making it clearer. I was responding to Smakman's statement that "evidence is not the same as proof." Scientific theories are evidenced, mathematical theorems are proved.

The rest of my post was designed to elicit more specifics from Smakman.

Harry Bosch

All right, I won't use belief anymore! Earlier, Smack was referring to scientists who believe in evolution. I was trying to say that it doesn’t matter who or what they believe. What matters is that do they recognize that one theory is vastly more supported with evidence that the other theory. However, I will use faith from now on.

Smakman

So, faith is belief without evidence, and belief can be had without proof, correct?

espritch

Personally, I don't mind the term "evolutionist". What really bugs me is the way Creationists use the term "evolution" to include not only Darwinian evolution, but abiogenesis, the big bang, stratigraphy, isocronology (is that the right word?), and every other field or theory of science that they have a beef with (and that includes just about every part of science).

PoodleLovinPessimist

Hence my preference for "scientist" as the opposite of "creationist".

Jobar

Well... blind faith is evidence-free belief. You can also have, for instance, a 'faithful friend', who has proven himself (provided evidence) of his good faith. AFAIK, all religious faith is blind faith.

"can be had"? Odd way to phrase it- I'd say 'can be held'. But, yes. Again with the caveat that belief *can* be held because of evidence (proof)- but it certainly is often held with no evidence. Faith and belief are fairly close synonyms.

spanner365

I,for one, am highly offended by the term "creationist".

Blueskyboris

The evolutionist/creationist dichotomy is so intense because it cuts Christianity right at the heart:

A) Evolution destroys the notion that God created the universe for Man. At best evolution allows a Metaphorical Creationist to argue that the end result of evolution, after billions and billions of years of the universe existing without Man, is Man. The argument, as you can see, is very weak.

B) Evolution destroys the notion of original sin. Animals are driven by selfish instinct; Man is the result of animals; Man must be driven by selfish instinct.

C) Evolution in its present formulation, argues that humanity is a result of random mutations and natural selection. God made Man a result of randomness is not an answer that settles well with theological assertions of a well ordered universe created by God for His reflection in matter, Man.

Bluesky.