I wish someone with a better understanding of philosophy and science wrote this article as it was so poorly executed. First, he says that we have no physical evidence of evolution. I don't even know where to begin to show how wrong this is. Actually, I do know, I can start in every single elementary biology text. Second, he is conflating two uses of the word "faith". In his own words, "faith is the belief in something that cannot always be seen or touched." Evolution can be seen. The products of evolution are seen all around us everyday. And not to mention the fact that evolutionary traits have been directly observed as is the case with: stickleback fish: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/stickleback/ Podarcis Sicula: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.ht... and many others. And this type of "faith" can make astoundingly accurate predictions about the world which his definition cannot. Finally, his argument from pain/suffering doesn't include why natural disasters or any other non-human-caused pain/suffering exists. And the argument from Free Will, which eventually boils down to a morality argument confronts serious problems such as the Euthyphro Dilemma.
You say that there is physical evidence of evolution, but where? And do not quote a damn textbook show me a real life example. The two examples that you give, the Stickleback Fish and the Podarcis Sicula, are not examples of evolution but adaptation. I do not believe that God causes those natural disasters or non-human suffering. I believe they are things that occur in nature and have occurred since the beginning of Creation. Also I have studied both science and philosophy so do not try to discredit me as someone who takes the Bible and gives no other justification. Just because you disagree with my conclusion does not mean you need to try to discredit me by calling my article "poorly executed". Try a little harder next time.
The physical evidence of evolution is literally in every organism that you view in your daily life. Yes, you will not see them speciate in front of your eyes because it takes hundreds, thousands, or millions of years for speciation to occur but you can see the process develop in front of your eyes as evidenced in the examples that I gave. I'm not going to go the route of ad hominem attacks but I truly do believe if you understood biology/biochemistry/physics at a higher level you would understand what constitutes as physical evidence for evolution. The definition you give of evidence (seeing speciation occur) is only partially correct. If we saw speciation occur, then sure, that would constitute physical evidence but that's not the only type of physical evidence that exists. For example: There is a medical test called 16S ribosomal typing. This test is done when a doctor cannot figure out what pathogen is causing a certain pathology. After amplifying the rRNA/rDNA through PCR and examining the results they are able to compare the pathogen on an evolutionary chart to make very accurate predictions on what the organism is and how to further treat the patient. I think most would consider this very strong physical evidence for evolution (ie by looking directly at the organism and determining it's phylogeny through evolutionary genomic features we can cure disease). On the second point. Why would God not be in control of those natural disasters? According to Christianity God created the universe and the laws observed within it. I can't see how God could not be held responsible. I am anticipating that you will counter this by saying that God just set the laws of nature in motion and therefore can't/won't alter it to protect human lives. If this is the case then we run into the very standard tri-omni dilemma in which God cannot be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent at the same time. This dilemma also holds true for Free Will as you described in your article.
Sigh. He has two "arguments", here's his first: The difference is that your "faith" in science (here specifically, in the men who perform the science) can be tested - and this makes all the difference in the world. Argument two is a hand-wavy assertion that pain (and god's allowance of it) is a result of god's imposition of free will. He's really just apologising for god's allowance of pain - an apology which is clearly unneeded if we assume there's no god. He then goes on to say that this (somehow) shows that faith is logical.So logically you have to have faith in both the belief in God and Science.
How can you test your "faith" in evolution? Your second sentence is just a piss poor attempt to wave my point off without giving it any credence or allowing any dialogue. Let me ask you this, why do you believe there is no God?
As soon as you explain to me why you believe there are no fairies.Let me ask you this, why do you believe there is no God?
I have evidence that God exists through my personal relationship with Him and the words that those who have experience Him personally have left. I do not have those things with fairies.
I do not have those things with any supernatural beings.
Just to clarify a little - I don't have any issue with people who believe in god (or ghosts, or UFOs, or whatever). No skin off my nose. But - and this just my opinion here, but - if you can't, or won't, reconcile your belief system with the reality of biological evolution, then I really can't take anything you say seriously regarding logic. No offense intended.
Give me proof of Biological evolution. I take none of this offensively. I originally started down a science track in college before switching over to religion. I enjoy a healthy debate.
You believe in a god with no proof, but you demand it of evolution? Odd. I will pass, thanks all the same. I'm fairly sure that it's your belief in god that is the reason you won't accept evolution, regardless of what I might say. Lots of people do believe in god, and can still accept biology.
You say there is no proof but you have thousands of years of tradition and written records. Those people who accept evolution and try to fit it in with God are trying to fit to pieces of the puzzle that do not go together. If evolution seemed to be right based on the evidence I would have no problem saying it could be a process from God, but as it stands I do not. If you do not wish to go back and forth fine, but at least be fair about it.
If this is really true, then you simply need an introductory biology class. There are no serious biologists who do not accept evolution (you will doubtless disagree - so let us agree to disagree). If you have anything to say other than "you can't prove it", then I guess we might still have something to discuss.If evolution seemed to be right based on the evidence I would have no problem saying it could be a process from God, but as it stands I do not.
Yes, well, there are thousands of years of tradition and written records pertaining to fairies, too. There's a line from a song that applies -I don't go in for ancient wisdom
I don't believe just 'cos ideas are tenacious it means they're worthy