Which theory takes more faith, Creation, Evolution, or Intelligent Design?
Please answer with reason
We know that these are the most popular theories about The Beginning. We also realize that all of them are just theories, not scientific laws. I'm interested in the reasoning behind your answer. Thank You for participating!
Creationism is a religious belief about 'The Beginning" and to believe requires faith.
Intelligent design also belongs to the religious domain.
Faith doesn't require empirical evidence.
Studying evolution requires a lot of meticulous scientific research. This doesn't require faith in a deity.
My 2 cents.
Faith is belief without evidence, therefore the belief in evolution doesn't come from faith. While it is still regarded as a theory, it is one that is based on facts, statistics and history. Intelligent design is a theory based on faith alone. So, in answer to your question, intelligent design and/or creation require the most amount of faith.
Evolution, as I understand it, is based on observed science, extrapolated back into history. Mathematically, the farther you get away from the known, your variables go up exponentially. If that is true, then evolution does take faith.
Except the variables can be estimated based on patterns and comparative data. Theorizing based on scientific conclusions is different than faith.
When we can't observe "The Beginning" of anything we are left with faith for a starting point, regardless of the theory, because if " The Beginning" is wrong then each progressive step can also be wrong. The variables leave us with faith in something
Science isn't claiming to know 'the beginning'. Evidence for the big bang and evolution only suggest that they happened, not that they started it all. Religion is the only thing that claims to have all the answers.
Since none of us were there to witness the development of man I would say all of those theories equally hinge on having faith. No one can produce concrete evidence that cause everyone to finally agree.
I kind of like the thought of the "other planet" theory. Aliens abandoned their dying planet and landed on earth to start anew.
We still can't figure out how the pyramids were built without the use of modern machinery. lol
I believe for every of those theories, you need at least some faith. Evolution is the one most scientists believe in. I say believe because there is no actual proof that there has been an Evolution. We plainly don't know. We are yet to find letters written from one ape to another dating back to the Big Bang. Were we absolutely sure, all of those theories would not be called theories but laws as you already said. Creation, as it is, has already been disproved by the existence of fossils that are millions of years old, but Intelligent Design can be as much disproved as the existence of God. I personally believe in Evolution, but I am absolutely aware that that theory is not indestructible.
If God is big enough to create absolutely everything in six days, wouldn'tHe be big enough to create it to test and look older than it is. The Bible says God did it in six days, so it would not be God deceiving man, but man deceiving man. Possible?
Yes, possible, assuming he exists, but that's a rather week argument. I could, for example, tell you that at the end of the universe a multicolored rainbow hangs in mid-air and you would have no way of disproving it. Does that meen that I'm right? No
You say you believe in Evolution, believing and faith are inter-related, it is hard to have one without the other. Our faith in something, be it, Evolution or Creation causes us to believe. Without faith there will never be enough proof.
You say the laws with which we check age tell us only what God wants us to see, then I say that we are only dust imagining to be alive. Some things have to be given to solve a problem. Faith doesnt create proof, science does and that's questioning.
So, you are saying that scientists and the people that follow them have no faith in what they are saying. Faith is part of believing in something. What reasoning led you to have faith in evolution. In Philosophy reason, faith, and belief are related.
God made it look older that 6 days as a test? This is the difference between believing on faith and believing because there is evidence. We have evidence for evolution and it is well proven. No faith required. Sorry. Your faith is irrational.
I find your statement interesting, first because not every scientist believes in evolution. In fact, there are over 200 scientists with Doctorates that believe in creation, plus all those with lesser degrees. So I would question evolution as fact.
Wow - 200 don't believe it and the remaining 2,000,000 do? As we all seem to agree - you are not asking the question for an answer. No wonder this religion causes so many conflicts.
I am actually asking for an answer with reasons. As you have stated in previous Q&A's majority is not always right. Every scientist doesn't believe in evolution. I'm trying to find out your reasoning.
Evidence. Lots and lots of evidence.
Evolution is a scientific theory that does not require faith at all. Evolution explains the variety of life on the planet and does not explain "The Beginning."
Creation and ID are not scientific theories as such. Evolution will never be called a "law" either.
Although you seem to be asking the question in order to argue that evolution takes faith. Why even bother asking the question in that case?
Actually, I think all things take faith, it just isn't thought about anymore. We get out of bed each day because of faith. When we lose faith, we stay in bed depressed, I've been there. We believe our car will start, we put faith in a lot of things.
Interesting. SO believing your car will start because it always does is that same as believing garbage?
One man's garbage is another man's treasure. The car starting is an easy example, if we didn't have faith it would start, we would leave earlier, just in case it didn't start. Faith that they will find answers is a driving force in science.
I gave you my reasoning - evidence. You reject this and call it "faith" instead. You think there is no evidence?
I was wondering that myself. Initially I thought you erased it, but then you don't strike me as one who would. Since you're asking, obviously you didn't. Maybe someone else flagged me. Someone who doesn't like that I'm always right probably (joke).
Junkseller, I figured out what happened. Instead of deleting my answer, it deleted the whole answer. I am sorry about this mistake.
Faith is an incredibly stupid and irrational concept when you think about it. Faith is believing in something without any empirical evidence. Many if not all religious people say they have faith based on their perceived experiences. This is ironic because they consider their experience to be evidence in favor of their religion. So in reality, their "faith" is not faith at all, but based on evidence. Religious people also try to find evidence for their religion in history and Science. By doing so they try to confirm their faith, which is contrary to the nature of faith. Faith is belief without evidence. Anybody who believes something without evidence is foolish, as every human would agree. That is why religious people try to find evidence; they don't have true faith. The Bible says that man can only receive "salvation through faith alone." If you are a Christian looking for evidence to support your "faith", I have two things for you: 1) you do not have faith. 2) the reason you don't have faith is because the concept of faith is irrational and against human nature.
Creation is an entirely faith based belief. there is no evidence for it at all. However, if the Bible is true than zero evidence is what you should expect! If God wants people to believe in Him through faith alone, then he will not leave behind any breadcrumbs for those people to verify that faith.
As for Intelligent Design, again their is no definitive evidence. However this is not a totally faith based believe. It is simply what I would call a "alternative theory". One in which evidence may arise in the future. At the present though, it is nothing more than an attempt to explain everything with a single word: "God". Man is so afraid to be in the dark without answers. That is where the concept of God came from.
Evolution has mountains of evidence. However none of this is definitive evidence that proves it is true. There are still many holes in the theory, such as "how is new information created in the DNA?" "How did external factors influence the DNA?" "How do you explain the Cantabrian explosion?" These questions are unanswerable at the moment, but that does not mean they will never be answered.
Cato, a very balanced approach to my question. Your right, that all are looking for evidence to prove their individual view. If all of the scientists approached our universe with open minds to spiritual and the natural, think about the possibilities.
Spiritual? Show us the proof. Oh wait - there is none and "science" relies on that. No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
Man has always had a spiritual side, that is why there are more religious people than atheists. What I am talking about is being more open-minded. both sides if they don't find answers to benefit their theories toss out data that could be useful.
So - no proof then? No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
Accepting, embracing & nurturing our "Spirituality," is VASTLY different than espousing to an organized religion (of HUNDREDS) being forced via threat/ shame to adhere to ignorant rules & being fleeced of $$ to support a "Church".=complete HO
Simplistically, Darwin started his theory from an idea. Then science went about looking for things to prove it, because until 1900's Creation was accepted by the majority. It is possible to make facts say anything you want, regardless of the theory.
Real scientists were actually rare in the 1900's. Few people believed that even bacteria existed. It's always harder to fight against people's faith, because they refuse to accept any other possibilities. There are no facts saying Creation is true.
by Topaz 11 years ago
Here in this dilemma lays the full concept of the descriptive meaning of two little words, They are not nouns, but they should be," How or Who."Lets start with the "How" this goes all the way back to which came first the hen or the egg.The big bang theory leaves a lot to wonder...
by Gaizy 6 years ago
With all the evidence for the theory of evolution, why do some people still believe otherwise.Once you have got your head around the theory of evolution, it's pretty obvious that it's close to how it must work. After all, animal breeders do the same thing when they selectively breed their stock....
by Zelkiiro 6 years ago
...while real in the presence of sort-of philosophical drivers, is, nonetheless, a philosophy of ignorance."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epLhaGGjfRw&t=00m19sAn extremely interesting and enlightening look at the history of science and the gradual phasing out of religiosity in it,...
by royalblkrose 7 years ago
Why is any intelligent observation by Christians about anything attacked?I recently answered a question about evolution, based on scientific facts, using proper grammar, syntax and definitions and was attacked for it. Great scientists such as George Washington Carver, Albert Einstein, Joseph Lister...
by marinealways24 9 years ago
Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?
by Jonesy0311 8 years ago
Do you think that Evolution or Intelligent Design (or neither) should be taught in High Schools?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|