Does believing in evolution take the same amount of faith as believing in creation does?

Question

Thank you all for your answers

Answer 1

No. Evolution can be inferred from the data -- especially the molecular data.

Answer 2

I don't think this is really an either-or question.

The two contradictory creation accounts of Genesis are among many examples of why the Bible is clearly not "God's instruction manual."

On the other hand, not taking the Bible as fact doesn't eliminate the possibility of some sort of intervention that hasn't documented itself.

One of the things that originally suckered me into religion was their ability to demonstrate the hugely hypothetical nature of evolutionary theory. I was a language major -- I highlighted the subjunctive mode in a couple of texts on evolution and ended up with more highlighted text that non.

Did we get here by evolution, creation, some combination thereof, or extraterrestrial seeding? I have no idea. At this time, I don't need to know.

"Faith" is fine as long as it isn't an excuse for believing in the irrational.

Suzanne

Answer 3

Learning about evolution simply takes an open mind and a bit of study. It doesn't require faith any more than believing in atoms does. If such overwhelming supportive evidence were not available, then I suppose it might take faith to accept such scientific realities. But if that were the case, neither evolution nor atoms would have attained the exalted status of scientific theories. Without the evidence they would both be simply hypotheses. But in view of the irrefutable evidence available, evolutionary theory and atomic theory form the foundations of science - evolutionary theory for biological sciences and atomic theory for virtually all sciences.

Answer 4

It certainly does! More, actually, as some have said. And before other people start saying to "do my research", I should tell them that I have. Anybody who has actually done their research should see that there's plenty more evidence for creation than there is for evolution (which, by the way, is still a THEORY). Here's a link:

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php

Now this website has been rather controversial, but if you actually read some of it... well, you'll just have to find out for yourself.

Answer 5

It takes a whole lot more faith to believe in evolution than creation. Since God can't lie it's easy to have faith in Him. We see physical evidence all around us.

I have never seen a frogdog or a catbear. Evolution is just a fantasy that man uses to turn off the smoke detector in his conscience. In the end creation itself is enough to prove God exits and to damn humanity to hell for eternity.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Rom. 1:20

Answer 6

No.

First, it's a semantic error to use the term "believe in" as if they were the same in the religious and scientific sense. Religious belief is a whole other level, requiring faith, unquestioning, ignoring evidence that opposes your belief.
When a scientist says "I believe," what they mean is, "So far, all of the evidence points to this being true, but I am willing to reconsider my opinion given additional data that contradicts my original conclusion." NOTHING like religious belief. NO faith required; the evidence is there - if it wasn't, scientists wouldn't accept the theory.

Answer 7

No, not at all; plus it's not a matter of "believing" in evolution. Evolution is supported by a overwhelming amount of evidence including uncountable fossils, transitional species, current examples, vestigial organs etc.

It's the same as "believing" that e = mc2 or any other scientific principle.

Answer 8

Mutation and version are testable and replicable and probably not data of the evolutionary commencing place theory, that's what creationists (not all conservatives are, btw) oppose. maximum creationists settle for something testable and replicable as a valid theory. The relationship techniques utilized by ability of evolutionists to confirm the age of the earth are actually not testable and there is no way of determining the outcomes of cataclysmic ameliorations over the years. No, they teach a difficulty-free layout. that's wide-spread to anticipate from one dressmaker. it incredibly is abiogenesis or great bang which we reject. And which continues to be being taught at school as "evolution."

Answer 9

It could, if you didn't look any further into either of them for your self. But at least with evolution there is a fossil record, genetic information, geology, biology, and other methods of collecting actual data that backs up the theory. All creation has is an old book of mythology.

Answer 10

Are Christians the ones with blind faith? Where you there when something popped into existence from nothing and exploded? No, well do you see something pop into existence from nothing today? Were you there when non-living matter gave rise to life? No, well do you see non-living matter giving rise to life today? Where you there when single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, when invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, when ape-like creatures gave rise to man? No, well do you see it happening today? You have to believe that matter came into existence by itself and then arranged itself into information systems by blind chance. That is what goes against real science.

As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati says, we need to quit calling evolution a theory; that is giving it too much credit. “Goo to you” evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture, not a theory.

Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup made an interesting statement: “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”

So why do so many people believe in molecules to man evolution? It’s simple, most people believe what they want to believe and they don’t want there to be a God. You see, if God created us, then He also owns us. If He owns us, then He has a right to set the rules by which we must live. If He has set the rules by which we must live, then we are accountable to Him. They don’t want to be accountable to God; they don’t want to be controlled. And so, it is their desire to explain the origin of everything without a Creator at all costs; they must believe in evolution. Evolutionism then, is intrinsically an atheistic religion—the religion of secular humanism.

Answer 11

No faith is necessary at all. Anyone could devote their lives to studying the actual examples and evidence, and learning the disciplines required.

In the real world, the only 'faith' needed is to accept that geologists, palaeontologists, biologists and geneticists are not able to maintain lies for long without being found out - and that consequently the official published data is true.

CD