Your “Faith” is Stronger than Mine!

If one believed that a system which is 50% supported by science and 50% not, is a truth, then there is no better word for it but to call it "religion".

An alternative is to call that system a model. I accept that evolution is a working model, but not a truth.

One of the strangest assertions of the latest incarnation of Creationism, is the idea that an atheist/agnostic’s “faith” in evolution is as strong, or stronger, than a Creationist’s “faith” in Jesus Christ as their savior. The way this works is to conflate two different definitions of “faith” as if they were the same. One definition is “a firm belief in something for which there is no proof,” while another is “something that is believed especially with strong conviction.” (from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary). The Collins English dictionary puts it this way: “a strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp. without proof or evidence,” vs. “a complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc.” Obviously a “faith” held as an unshakable belief not relying on evidence is not the same as trust or confidence in something, that in the case of evolution, is based entirely on physical evidence. However, Creationists like to pretend these definitions are the same, as part of their penchant for the use of sophistry to score points for “God’s side.”

The question of course, is why do this? I believe the primary goal is to gain parity for creationism with evolution, in support of the assertion that if evolution is taught in a biology class, then creationism should be as well. In addition, Creationists are feeling inferior to their opponents in the debate, and want to feel equal to them. The question is, at what cost?

Creationists us the assertion that evolution supporters have “faith” in evolution as a kind of accusation. “You have as much faith in evolution as I do in Christ!” Or even worse, “It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in God!” WHAT? That’s right… here we have a Christian accusing a non-believer of having more faith than he or she has! It should be the other way around. A Christian to be asking non-believers, “why don’t you have more faith?” rather than accusing them of having more than they do! What does this do to the Creationist’s own religious belief? It demeans it. “Faith” in Jesus Christ becomes equivalent to having “Faith” that the Sun will come up in the morning, or that the Fire Department will come in time to save your house if a fire starts inside it. So in a poor attempt to gain “equality” with their opponents, the Creationists have reduced their own faith in Jesus Christ as their savior into something one might attribute to a light switch. How very sad.

So, which 50% of the theory of evolution is supported by science and which 50% is not? Also, please note that science is not interested in "The Truth." Evolution is simply the best scientific explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth.

You're right. It's a false equivocation in an attempt to gain equal footing. Note that they never apply the same equivocation to things like astrology or palm reading.

If evolution were true, it would give a fundamental challenge to any religion. No other mystique could match its influence.

18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

But it isn't true --- God makes it plain that Genesis is to be interpreted literally.

But it isn't true --- God makes it plain that Genesis is to be interpreted literally.

I am glad that you have this understanding. If so, I have no objection to your view of evolution.

And, please explain the same to other creationists. I believe they will understand. The key is NOT to say that evolution is a truth. To avoid misunderstanding, I would suggest that you say that evolution is a (an excellent ?) scientific model. Then there will be no issue on faith.

By the way, your science may not be interested in The Truth, but my science does. Otherwise, I will not do science.

But it isn't true --- God makes it plain that Genesis is to be interpreted literally.

The "applied" part needs little faith. The rest would need the same "religious belief".