How does one 'believe' in scientific evidence?

Question

I never quite understand the use of the word 'belief' when people ask the question of evolution vs. creation......Evolution has scientific evidence and creationism does not. Evolution being science has nothing to do with belief, it has to do with acceptance from my perspective as well as others. Thoughts?

PaulCyp makes a good distinction so make sure you read his response.....

Answer 1

Exactly right. We usually do "believe" the professional status of the scientists who publish the evidence - though we could objectively confirm even that if necessary. But acceptence of the data itswelf - the scientific evidence - simply involves an increase in knowledge. There is no subjective "belief" involved.

Answer 2

As many have stated the FACT that science is always finding new ways to "test" old THEORIES. Darwinism has been proven to be false..over & over again & yet people WANT so desperately to believe that there is NOT a God. But when people such as Einstein, a great man of science, who like many started out an athesist, as he searched for answers to the "great question" (Is there a God?) Found that there really is a Creator! The more than you search the scientific evidence that is out there for you to examine, the more you come to "know" (not believe) that there really is a God. Once you come to that conclusion, then you must decide who that God (Creator) is,..and what course your life will take after that.
There really is NO proof or evidence that man has "evolved" for all the so called "proof" that is there today has been PROVEN to be false. So in essense anyone that believes "blindly" in what SOME scientists are saying, in regard to evolution has not really examined the FACTS, and have made a choice of "believing" something because they CHOOSE to do so & NOT because they have examined ALL the facts for themselves!

Answer 3

You shouldn't really "believe" in scientifically established ideas. You should really just "accept" them as the explanations that have been best supported by evidence so far. Really, we just use scientific theories and hypothesis as temporary working models until they can be improved upon by new knowledge. Of course, some of these ideas might not ever be improved upon, but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying.

I have, however, met people that said they strongly believed in certain scientific facts, but who, I eventually realized, didn't really understand the facts or had rather wrong ideas about the facts. So, there are people in the world that do practice a sort of "religious" belief in regards to science. I think this is somewhat caused by the general acceptance of this kind of thinking in our culture due to the influence of religion.

So, apparently, religion can cause problems for some people that don't even believe in it, just by setting a bad example in terms of thought processes.

Answer 4

Science is truth. It is based on evidence and research. Can you research God, yes but everything about him is speculation based on the writings of man. Is there any evidence of God's existence? Don't say that life is evidence, because that is the debate. The bible was written by many men, some of which even talked to burning bushes. Water freezes at 32 degrees fahrenheit and boils at 212 degrees fahrenheit. If I dispute this "fact," all scientific research I would conduct would prove that it is an indisputable fact. Thus making it the truth. There is no truth in something that cannot be proven, there is only speculation otherwise known as faith.

Answer 5

I’m a Christian and I don’t have a problem with PURE science. But I draw the line when people say our science replaces God. Sometimes scientist “stage” evidence for whatever reason and when this happens those who devour these findings as truth inadvertently ingest something no more than a sham. Science is constantly evolving along a learning curve particularly when it comes to the origin of life. In the mean time, God is waiting at the other end of their investigation.

Answer 6

The attempt to make Evolution something that needs belief is no more than a thinly veiled attempt to try to relabel evolution as a kind of religion.

Creationists have been trying to get their pseudo-science called creationism allowed to be taught along side of evolution or that evolution having been reclassified as a religious belief will be taken out of school.

With evolution out of school, and more and more of the country following lock-step behind a Christian Right doctrine, the US will simply continue it's slide into a new Dark Age, where questioning the ruling religion is not tolerated ..................... Kind of like Afghanistan under the Taliban

Answer 7

This is a point I attempt to make often, though I find it is lost on the majority.

I don't believe in evolution; I have educated myself on its tenets and evidence and accept it as the best explanation we have at the moment (which is constantly being augmented by additional information).

To take it to the most abstract point, perhaps belief would come into science in that we "believe" the experts. But still, that is more acceptance of their expertise, and all the info they support and disseminate is transparent anyway (i.e. you can look it up yourself). However, because of their expertise and authority on the subject, we feel we can trust them to present the information truthfully. Their peers would shoot them down immediately, or course, if they did not.

Answer 8

One doesn't "believe" in scientific evidence. The evidence is right there on the page, so to speak. One draws conclusions from the evidence and epitomizes those conclusions in a theory; then one takes that theory as a model against which one can compare new data. It's not quite proper to say you "believe" in a scientific theory, either. Your theory is the reference-point of your work; it's valid as long as the new data corroborates it rather than undermining it.

Creationism isn't a scientific theory because it's not based on evidence, and there is no conceivable way to take it as a model for further research. The absolute best creationist "scientists" have been able to come up with are ideas like "irreducible complexity," which argues that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from less complex systems. But it's still a giant leap - a leap of pure "faith" - from the admission that "We can't figure out how this happened" to "God must've done this."

Answer 9

for justifying the evolutionary process, scientist gather data which justifies the evolution. The data so gathered is termed as Scientific Evidence..

for justifying the Creation .. from where the evidence will be collected.. Evidence comes from the pre-existing material left over after any event takes place.. like murder or thieving, of bomb blast.. but Creation was a Universal Happening effected by Supernatural Power..

then some one will ask for evidence of supernatural power. from where that power created the earth and ad infinitum...

So evolutionary process is one way argument , supported by Scientific Data.. where as creation is not at all an argument capable of getting support from Scientific world..

I just look at the time of Rains.. when withing few hours of rain water.. hundreds of thousands of small flying insects appear.. from where they are created.. are they evolved or are they created.. Not only they appear suddenly, but they die also withing 24 hours..

We too must be like creatures in the eyes of Supernatural Power.. who created us and is giving us rope to play our game..

Answer 10

Agreed.

Scientists operate under a series of assumptions based on the observance of past phenomena. IF those same observations are DIFFERENT for some reason, the scientist through the use of the scientific method has to find a way to explain why what was previously expected to occur did not.

That's not "belief" in the sense of a religious belief or even just some ideology.