"faith" in science

[stu]

I have heard many a christain say that science is not totally free of faith... I think that it might exist to an extent, perhaps not to the level of religious faith, but at any rate i would like for those christians who think so, to please articulate your argument. I am not sure i fully understand your points.

thoughts?

peace

stu

 

[Jerry Smith]

Stu,

Hi. I'm no creationist, but I'd like to insert my $.02.

Science is about doing the best we can to understand nature on nature's terms. We have confidence in science, not faith. The confidence we have in science comes from its methods, its correct predictions, and its results.

There is criticism that "evolutionists" have "faith" that there is a ancestor-descendent relationship between any given two taxonomical groups.

If we point to a transitional fossil, then candidly admit that we do not know that the transitional fossil had descendents in the younger taxa, they say that we have only "faith" that it is transitional.

If we point to genetic similarities between two modern taxa that are theoretically related by common descent, then we have only evidence of a "common designer". If we further point out that the genetic similarities occur even in the non-coding segments of the DNA, they argue that we haven't discovered yet the function of those segments.

If we point out a non-functional segment that bears strong resemblance to a functional gene in other extant organisms but has a "stop" codon in the middle in two theoretically related organisms - one which could have resulted from a single frame-shift mutation, they change the subject and wait for a new thread in which to assert that we have "faith" (meaning the religious kind, not supported by evidence) in evolution.

No matter what evidence is found; no matter how many transitional fossils are discovered in exactly the right strata with exactly the right mixture of primitive and derived characters; no matter how many genomic studies provide evidence on virtually every scale of both the facts and the theory of evolution... because we accept that evidence over the Creationist's faith in a literal reading of Genesis - we MUST be starting from the a priori position that Genesis is wrong, that "everything 'made' itself", and that there can be no God or gods, and we MUST be basing science on unsupportable assumptions.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by stu
I have heard many a christain say that science is not totally free of faith... I think that it might exist to an extent, perhaps not to the level of religious faith, but at any rate i would like for those christians who think so, to please articulate your argument. I am not sure i fully understand your points.

thoughts?

peace

stu

Speaking only for myself:

Strictly speaking, everything we believe is based on faith. Science is simply no exception. One has faith that the scientific method returns useful and reliable information. Just because one has that kind of faith doesn't make the information any less useful or reliable.

So the problem I have with evolution is not that it is based on faith in the scientific method, but that people SAY it is based on the scientific method but it is NOT. Therefore their faith is misplaced.

Here's the scientific method as defined on a U of Rochester site:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

You can not satisfy steps 1 and 4 as they pertain to the kind of evolution creationists believe is false.

1. No one has ever observed a bacteria evolve into a kangaroo.

4. Nobody has ever evolved a bacteria into a kangaroo in the lab via several properly performed and corroborated independent experiments.

All anyone has been able to do is produce bits and pieces of what they BELIEVE are parts of the process that could produce a kangaroo from a bacteria -- and then extrapolate that information into the ASSUMPTION that a bacteria actually DID evolve into a kangaroo.

So it's not faith in science or the scientific method that I find fault with. It's faith in the ILLUSION that the theory/hypothesis of evolution has any scientific validity and is testable. In other words, scientists have placed their faith NOT in the scientific method, but in their IMAGINATION, and then call it "science" to give it the appearance of validity and respectability.

Some people think they've met the conditions because they've "predicted" some of what we'd find in the fossil record. There are two things wrong with that.

First, it never matters when the predictions are false. There was an article recently about some fish fossil that had paddles with 15 toes, or something like that. The article stated that this "rewrote the book" on the evolution of hands and feet. So how can you actually say that fossils fulfill the predictions when it doesn't matter when they don't? All you have to do when they DON'T is simply reroute the phylogenic tree or make a space for a new species. So it doesn't matter what the fossil record shows -- you can always find a way to fit it into evolution if you just use your IMAGINATION.

Second, the prediction step 4 is talking about is NOT a prediction about what you'll find in evidence from the past. It's a prediction about what will happen if you try to repeat the process!

Now it's no good offering the excuse that we don't have millions of years to test the hypothesis in a lab. You may be right that this is why it's not possible to test evolution according to a strict interpretation of the scientific method, but that doesn't excuse the fact that you go ahead and call it science, anyway. It isn't, and no amount of speculation will ever make it science.

(Please don't obsess on the choice of bacteria and kangaroos -- I chose this example so that nobody can hijack the conversation by introducing the speciation of mosquitos, as if a mosquito evolving into a mosquito is proof that evolution has been observed.)

 

[choccy]

Just a couple of points from me before this potentially interesting discussion degenerates into a evolutions is/isn't science. The terms used here must be defined much more clearly for this discussion to get anywhere.

First off, what is faith and how does it relate to science and religion? From Nick's post:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

When this method is followed, and we're able to perform experiments and get the predicted results it should be clear that having "faith" in the scientific method is something completely different than religious faith, which by it's very nature is untestable. At the very least there is a huge difference in degree between the two "faiths". I will argue that they are different phenomena all together, but is willing to listen if someone can explain to me why faith in science is equal to religious faith.

Secondly, to avoid confusion, when talking about evolution you have to qualify what you mean by evolution, ie. what "type" of evolution or part of the theory you're talking about. Everybody agrees that a limitted amount of evolution has and still does occur, so saying that evolution is false or evolution is not a science is simply wrong. One can argue that the common descent part of evolution is not rooted in good science, but noone can deny the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria. And noone can deny that the study of those bacteria doesn't satisfy the scientific method, at least not with any shred of intellectual honesty and integrity.

Just my 0.02 NOK.

Choccy

 

[npetreley]

First of all, common descent is obviously what I was talking about or I wouldn't have used bacteria-to-kangaroo as the example.

Originally posted by choccy

When this method is followed, and we're able to perform experiments and get the predicted results it should be clear that having "faith" in the scientific method is something completely different than religious faith which by it's very nature is untestable.

IMO, you're looking at this from at least a couple more levels of abstraction than I was. That's fine, but please don't compare one level of abstraction with another. In other words, this isn't about the scientific method vs. the Bible. Those are very different levels of abstraction of faith.

So I'm going to back all the way out to show you that there IS, indeed, a difference between A MATERIALIST-SCIENTIST'S faith and MY faith, but it has NOTHING to do with whether or not one is testable.

First, just so we're on the same page, I define the term "faith" as "trust." Given that faith is trust, I think I can back out to the proper level of abstraction with a ridiculous but (hopefully) instructive example.

(references to "men" in the remainder of this post are meant in the literary sense and means "humanity" including women)

Here's the scientific method once again:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

So let's get to my ridiculous example.

(Step 1) You're a scientific neanderthal who sees a solar eclipse. Your neighbor is frightened by the eclipse and starts screaming. After prolonged screaming, the shadow goes away and the sun comes out again.

(Step 2) Based on your miniscule knowledge, you hypothesize that the eclipse is caused by some round shadow creature that is eventually scared away by the screaming.

(Step 3) If you're right, then you can predict that when you see a similar lunar eclipse, screaming should make it go away.

(Step 4) You try it out on the next lunar eclipse, and it confirms your hypothesis.

Whoops, the scientific method just failed.

I already know what your answer will be, and I can tell you right now that I have no problem with it. Someone will undoubtedly read an article about the scream theory in Scientific Neanderthal, and will think it's flawed. So he'll perform a test that falsifies your conclusions and propose an alternate hypothesis that may get you closer to the "correct" explanation.

So where is your faith? It obviously isn't in the scientific method. So your faith must be in man's ability to apply the scientific method (and various other methods of discovering information), and man's ability to progressively improve the process of figuring out which information is reliable and which isn't.

Wrong.

You reject the methodologies and conclusions of SOME men. Creationists, for example. So you aren't really trusting in "man," you're trusting in the abilities of somewhat like-minded "men" who use methods of which you approve -- men who meet your criteria for being providers of trustworthy information. You've decided those men are true scientists, but the others aren't.

Whoops - we just dropped to yet another level of abstraction. This isn't about science at all, is it? It's about whom and what you trust vs. whom and what you don't trust.

On what absolute objective criteria have you decided whom and what to trust? There is none. Ultimately, what it ALL boils down to YOUR OWN PERSONAL physical senses and YOUR OWN PERSONAL ability to reason well enough to come to the right conclusions about the information you collect with YOUR OWN senses.

And that's why your logic is flawed. None of the criteria for which you choose who and what to trust -- your own senses and reason -- are testable to your satisfaction outside the use of your own senses and reason, which may be flawed. They are not objectively testable at all.

That brings us to the REAL difference. My faith is based on an apparent paradox. I believe I CANNOT trust my senses and reason, but must trust instead in God.

I can see perfectly well why that seems like an absurd paradox to the materialist, because to that person, senses and reason are the only real sources of information. And I can see why it seems reasonable to the materialist to think that we really ARE trusting in our senses and reason, because that's how a materialist must assume we process the Word of God.

What the materialist does not accept is that all truths (one of which is that we cannot trust our senses and reason) are spiritually discerned, not discerned through senses and reason. But despite the fact that a materialist cannot see it the way we do, that's the difference in a nutshell.

You will say, then, that you can prove that senses and reason exist, but not the spirit. But then I will say to you can only prove to your own satisfaction that you only experience senses and reason as real because you only have senses and reason on which to rely to experience that they are real. You don't experience the Spirit because you don't have it. Therefore it certainly is NOT real to you. It would be the same if you were born without eyes or any wiring in your brain for sight (and therefore couldn't even imagine images). It wouldn't matter how much someone told you the ability to see is self-evident. You wouldn't understand sight or know if it was real outside of trusting it was real because someone told you it was. To them, however, it would be silly to even try to prove sight exists.

Similarly, I don't need to prove the existence of God and the Spirit to like-minded people because that's what THEY experience, too. Just because you don't have the "eyes" and the "wiring" doesn't mean God is any less real. It only explains why you can't see how self-evident it is to me and others.

Up to this point, I've been using the editorial "you." I don't recall if you personally know God or not.

But as to the REAL you, can you prove YOU exist?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Every human has the physical senses and the capacity for reason. When several humans compare the information that they observe with their senses, they will normally agree with one another on what was observed. If there is something that one observes and others do not, the one who is observant of it can point to precisely where it can be found. We can keep this at a fairly simple level of abstraction. A scientist may see a metacarpal where a six year old will see an old bone, but the scientist can, with time and effort, show the six year old in detail the shape of the bone, and why one can have confidence it is a metacarpal. Both see the same object and can discern the same shape and color.

As Nick points out,

You don't experience the Spirit because you don't have it. Therefore it certainly is NOT real to you. It would be the same if you were born without eyes or any wiring in your brain for sight (and therefore couldn't even imagine images). It wouldn't matter how much someone told you the ability to see is self-evident. You wouldn't understand sight or know if it was real outside of trusting it was real because someone told you it was. To them, however, it would be silly to even try to prove sight exists.

The religious sense is not something we share in common. One person might get goosebumps on his neck when they sing "Surely the Presence of the Lord is in This Place," and "feel the tug" of the spirit. Someone else may start speaking in tounges when they come under the spirit, and a third person may become convulsive and speak with a different voice during a voodoo ritual. These three people cannot tell the others how to have the same experience, and furthermore a completely non-religious person may have some very similar experiences under purely secular circumstances (a patriotic song, under hypnosis, during a seizure). In the end, the religious experience is completely personal and subjective.

In the end material experience is objective and can be established by any number of willing observers regardless of their religious education.

Faith in a system of reason and knowledge based on material experience and faith in a system of reason and knowledge based on subjective personal experience are clearly two qualifiably different things. They are not necessarily incompatible, but they are certainly a different kind of inquiry.

Whoops, the scientific method just failed.

This is your misunderstanding. The scientific method DIDN'T fail. It failed to falsify the hypothesis being tested, but as you point out, others must and will try stringently to falsify the hypothesis before it can be provisionally accepted.

The real confusion here, though, comes from the mistaken notion that humans should have access to perfect certainty through science. Supposing that enough stringent attempts to falsify a hypothesis were made and failed, and supposing that enough attempts to confirm a hypothesis were made and succeeded that the hypothesis became provisionally accepted. In that case, we only have great confidence that the hypothesis is true, never 100% certainty. More importantly, if the hypothesis is not true it is near certain that it will be overturned in the FUTURE, as science proceeds. Most importantly, if the theory is confirmed and is NOT falsified or replaced, one can safely accept that it is good enough to cope with nature as it impinges on our experience. We have little need or hope of truly understanding nature that does NOT impinge on our own experience anyway. Our understanding from science should always be adequate to provide us the tools for understanding and dealing with nature to whatever degree that nature has any conceivable impact on us. A philosopher may wish for ultimate truth, but a practical person will settle for the approximation that works best for our human needs.

A last note: the theory of common descent is no less purely scientific than the theory of "micro-" evolution. The theory is probably unique in being the target of the most numerous and strenuous attempts at falsification, each of which have failed. The theory has made one prediction after another that have been repeatedly confirmed. The sheer number of predictions that come from darwinian theory that have been fulfilled since the theory was proposed is mind-boggling. Only ignorance, perversity, or a prior commitment to the falsehood of common descent can explain the denial of its status as one of the best confirmed theories of science history.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
So the problem I have with evolution is not that it is based on faith in the scientific method, but that people SAY it is based on the scientific method but it is NOT. Therefore their faith is misplaced.

Baloney.

Here's the scientific method as defined on a U of Rochester site:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


You can not satisfy steps 1 and 4 as they pertain to the kind of evolution creationists believe is false.

Sure I can.

Step 1 says "observation and description of a phenomenon", not "observation and description of the theory". Your silly example places the cart before the horse. Darwin didn't formulate the theory of evolution by observing species evolving. If he did, then "The Origin of Species" would hardly have caused a stir.

Here are the "phenomena" that Darwin observed:
- Variation within a species
- The perpetual struggle for existence
- Correlation between variation and ecology (think of the finches)
- The geographical distribution of species
- Comparative anatomy
- Patterns of embryo development
- Rudimentary organs

In fact a large portion of Darwin's text is devoted solely to describing the phenomena that he observed.

1. No one has ever observed a bacteria evolve into a kangaroo.

So what? There are a whole host of scientific theories we accept as true that no one has ever observed directly. For example:

- a tree turning into coal
- an electron "tunneling" through a potential barrier
- the warping of spacetime by matter
- a Uranium atom being struck by a neutron and fissioning into two smaller atoms
- hydrogen and oxygen atoms combining to produce water
- the formation of rain drops in clouds
- the internal workings of the Sun
Shall I continue?

Your "no direct observation" objection is quite silly, Nick. As I have shown, a large amount of our scientific knowledge has been derived without the benefit of direct observation. Or do you deny that knowledge, too?

4. Nobody has ever evolved a bacteria into a kangaroo in the lab via several properly performed and corroborated independent experiments.

No one has, and no one ever will, I suspect. (Even if they did, creationsts would still object that evolution still wasn't proven because an intelligent agent was necesary, namely, the experimenter).

But your impossible experiment is just one of THOUSANDS of possible experiments, many of which ARE POSSIBLE to perform. Researchers have been performing these experiments for 150 years since the publication of Darwin's theory and these experiments all confirm one thing: Darwin was largely correct.

All anyone has been able to do is produce bits and pieces of what they BELIEVE are parts of the process that could produce a kangaroo from a bacteria -- and then extrapolate that information into the ASSUMPTION that a bacteria actually DID evolve into a kangaroo.

I think you are largely correct in this statement, although you engage in a bit of hyperbole. Your "bits and pieces" assessment of the evidence grossly understates the true measure of the evidence. Yes, there is extrapolation, and yes, there is a provisional conclusion (what you call an "assumption") that kangaroos evolved from primitive bacteria-like forms. But this is because it is the only explanation that is consistent with the observed evidence.

So it's not faith in science or the scientific method that I find fault with. It's faith in the ILLUSION that the theory/hypothesis of evolution has any scientific validity and is testable. In other words, scientists have placed their faith NOT in the scientific method, but in their IMAGINATION, and then call it "science" to give it the appearance of validity and respectability.

Since I've pretty well shown that your critique of the scientific basis of evolution is ill-founded, your conclusions about evolutionary theory are unsubstantiated.

Some people think they've met the conditions because they've "predicted" some of what we'd find in the fossil record. There are two things wrong with that.

First, it never matters when the predictions are false. There was an article recently about some fish fossil that had paddles with 15 toes, or something like that. The article stated that this "rewrote the book" on the evolution of hands and feet. So how can you actually say that fossils fulfill the predictions when it doesn't matter when they don't? All you have to do when they DON'T is simply reroute the phylogenic tree or make a space for a new species. So it doesn't matter what the fossil record shows -- you can always find a way to fit it into evolution if you just use your IMAGINATION.

You fail to realize that there is a big difference between falsifying a specific path of evolution and falsifying the theory in general. I think the example you cited is a perfect demonstration of how scientists are willing to abandon their theories (in this case, the evolution of limbs) in the face of contradictory evidence.

Think of it this way: there are an infinite number of evolutionary pathways between two species. Scientists theorized as to what the evolutionary path bewteen non-limbed and limbed creatues looked like. Evidence was found to contradict this, and therefore to exclude a certain set of pathways. There is still a very large set of pathways that remain possible.

Now if someone finds a fossil chimpanzee in the same strata as a T-Rex, then evolutionary theory will be in for a serious challenge.

Second, the prediction step 4 is talking about is NOT a prediction about what you'll find in evidence from the past. It's a prediction about what will happen if you try to repeat the process!

Let's review step 4 again:

"4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."

Where exactly does it say, Nick, that experimental tests of evidence from the past are disallowed?

Again, keep in mind that much of our knowledge of geology and astronomy are based on experimental tests of things that happened in the past. Do you reject these sciences, too?

Now it's no good offering the excuse that we don't have millions of years to test the hypothesis in a lab. You may be right that this is why it's not possible to test evolution according to a strict interpretation of the scientific method, but that doesn't excuse the fact that you go ahead and call it science, anyway. It isn't, and no amount of speculation will ever make it science.

Let's look at the definition of the scientific method one more time to assess your claims:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Done. Thanks to Darwin and hundreds of other naturalists before him.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

Done, obviously.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

Done. The fossil record, biogeography, genetic similarities, and morphological similarities are just a few of the predictions of evolution.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If 150 years of experimental tests and confirmation doesn't count as success here, I don't know what will.

Remember, too, that the discovery of DNA was a HUGE, HUGE test of evolutionary theory. This had the potential to demolish evolution in one fell swoop. Instead, it confirmed it in spades.

In summary, Nick, you assertion that evolution is not science is completely, utterly groundless. There is not much more I can say.

 

[Joe V.]

Nick, if evolutionary theory is so invalid to you, why don't you take your opposition to it and bring it up with the courts? If you really think it's such a big joke, as you seem to imply, then our kids are really being decieved aren't they? If it's that important to you and you think you can prove it's wrong, why don't you do it? If you're not willing to do it, then I don't see how you can have any grounds whatsoever to keep complaining about how evolution is such a bad concept.

- Joe

 

[seebs]

Nick, the problem is that, for everything *BUT* evolution, you (and most other creationists) seem to be quite willing to say "since we have explanations for all of the steps, and they seem to work, this is our theory about how this happened".

We don't need to observe every single part; we can simply observe that processes like those needed exist, and that we've seen them, and that if we put them together, we'd get the observed result... and we *HAVE* that for evolution.

We've never seen a bacterium evolve into a kangaroo.

We have seen bacteria change, and we have seen the same mechanisms lead to the formation of "simple" multicellular life. We have seen multicellular life forms become more complicated, we've seen them acquire interesting new traits... all the pieces are there.

This requires "faith" in about the same way that I need "faith" to suspect that the process by which my flashlight works is roughly what scientists say it is.

It may require *more* such faith, but the fact is, we don't look into each flashlight and "confirm" that electrons are heating something so it emits photons.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joe V.
Nick, if evolutionary theory is so invalid to you, why don't you take your opposition to it and bring it up with the courts?

I wish I had the time and energy to do so.

Originally posted by Joe V.
If you really think it's such a big joke, as you seem to imply, then our kids are really being decieved aren't they?[/b]

Yes, they are. I'm glad you see it that way.

Originally posted by Joe V.
If it's that important to you and you think you can prove it's wrong, why don't you do it?[/B]

When did I say I could prove it wrong?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs

This requires "faith" in about the same way that I need "faith" to suspect that the process by which my flashlight works is roughly what scientists say it is.

I'm tired of saying this over and over again, but that's not the same thing at all. With a flashlight, you can observe and test the WHOLE PROCESS FROM START TO FINISH.

You can't do that with evolution. You have to fill in all the gaps with your imagination.

You may be satisfied with that, but it's still not the same thing as testing the theory of how a flashlight works. And no matter how many times you say it is, it doesn't make it the same thing.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


I'm tired of saying this over and over again, but that's not the same thing at all. With a flashlight, you can observe and test the WHOLE PROCESS FROM START TO FINISH.

You can't do that with evolution. You have to fill in all the gaps with your imagination.

You may be satisfied with that, but it's still not the same thing as testing the theory of how a flashlight works. And no matter how many times you say it is, it doesn't make it the same thing.

You have to fill in the gaps with a flashlight too. You cannot see the electrons move. You know that they do because when you make predictions based on electromagnetic theory they come true. You cannot see the electrons move, but you fill in the "gaps" with the theory to explain the working of the flashlight.

You cannot see common descent happening either, but you know that it does happen. Two species of mosquitos descend from a common parent population. Two species of salamanders descend from a common parent population. You see life existing in a nested hierarchy of morphological similarity, the same kind that that can be produced by multiple speciation events like the kind you have observed. You see the distribution of life on earth patterned in a way that can be correlated only by common descent from geographically isolated populations. You see fossils of transitional forms precisely where common descent by evolution would put them.

You do not fill in the gaps with your imagination. You fill them in with theory. You define them with data points.

 

[unworthyone]

Faith is a religious word and that's why scientists, evolutionists, etc refuse to admit using it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by unworthyone
Faith is a religious word and that's why scientists, evolutionists, etc refuse to admit using it.

But worthy, many scientists, evolutionists, etc. use faith regularly. They simply do not use it to make scientific explanations of the natural world. Many do use it, to guide their moral decisions, to do all of the same things non-scientists who are faithful use it for.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
But worthy, many scientists, evolutionists, etc. use faith regularly. They simply do not use it to make scientific explanations of the natural world. Many do use it, to guide their moral decisions, to do all of the same things non-scientists who are faithful use it for.

I have faith while praying to God. The prayer is answered. I have faith God answered it.

Theorized, tested, approved.

I have faith I'll find bones that evolved. I dig and find a bone. I have faith the bone evolved.

Theorized, tested, approved.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by unworthyone
I have faith while praying to God. The prayer is answered. I have faith God answered it.

Theorized, tested, approved.

Unscientific though, because I cannot repeat your observations.

I have faith I'll find bones that evolved. I dig and find a bone. I have faith the bone evolved.

Theorized, tested, approved.

No one has faith the bone evolved. We expect to turn up some very specific kinds of transitional fossils because of the evolutionary relationships of organisms living now. When we find fossils with the predicted characteristics in the predicted layers of rock, we have evidence we can all observe for our theory. (Bones are the least of the evidence for common descent, by the way).

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Unscientific though, because I cannot repeat your observations.

Sure you can. Its called prayer.

No one has faith the bone evolved. We expect to turn up some very specific kinds of transitional fossils because of the evolutionary relationships of organisms living now. When we find fossils with the predicted characteristics in the predicted layers of rock, we have evidence we can all observe for our theory. (Bones are the least of the evidence for common descent, by the way).

Right you know it evolved?

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
We expect to turn up some very specific kinds of transitional fossils because of the evolutionary relationships of organisms living now. When we find fossils with the predicted characteristics in the predicted layers of rock, we have evidence we can all observe for our theory. (Bones are the least of the evidence for common descent, by the way).

Right.

I can expect to see prayers answered now because of past experience of answered prayer. When I pray and the prayer is answered I have evidence that the prayer supports my theory that....

God answers prayers.

Its Faith. I don't know 100% it will be answered but...I have evidence from previous experiences.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

I will attempt to reproduce unworthyone's experiment by praying that a bone evolves. I'll keep you posted.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by npetreley
I'm tired of saying this over and over again

I've seen no evidence of that. Quite the opposite, actually.