For those that argue that the use of faith is ignorance at its worst, your argument is infantile. Every person on this earth uses faith. We all have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, we have no way of knowing that the sun will not explode sometime during our sleep. However unlikely, we still do not know with absolute certainty that it will still be there in the morning, but rather we rely on faith. Understanding this is critical to understanding why some believe with faith something they do not have absolute evidence of. Rather they choose to believe something exists, a choice that we all make in one thing or another, and because one does not make that choice does not make them more intelligent or less intelligent than the other.

That said, many individual point to the absence of evidence there is an intelligent being. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There was no evidence of blind salamanders five years ago. However, that did not mean they were non existent. They were still there, just undiscovered. Likewise, there may be evidence out there that proves the existence of an intelligent being that has yet to be discovered. I’ll also concede that there may be evidence that disproves, however I choose to remain faithfull that the sun will come up tomorrow and that God exists

Defining Creation vs. Intelligent Design. There are two distinct and separate belief systems here. Creation is a belief that everything that exists on earth was created just as it is. This is ludicrous as we have witnessed different species created. For example, different species of flowers coexist and can no longer cross-pollinate/breed. This is used as proof of evolution, however it is only proof that one aspect of evolution works and is not proof of the entire theory (discussed later). There is also the belief in Intelligent Design which states that life was created by some distant intelligent being but that life itself evolves. It holds that not everything evolved from primordial ooze but that instead various species and family of animals came from one basic ancestor. That all reptiles came from one basic reptile at the beginning, but that mammals and reptiles did not evolve from the same organism. Two specific and distinct theories.

Evolution has holes that are not explained, doesn’t mean it is wrong, but because it offers explanations of items does not mean it is right either. For example it was once a widely held theory that the speed of sound could not be broken. This scientific theory had many indicators and there were a number of scientists felt that it was almost tantamount to a law. To sit here today and make that claim would be asinine, because we know differently. Likewise, to claim that evolution has been proved into law is just as asinine a claim as to say that the speed of sound cannot be broken.

Creationism, Intelligent Design, or Evolution, none of these theories have been proved. However I can say that Evolution does not offer an explanation for some of its gaps, instead stating that it hasn’t discovered the answer. Whereas, Intelligent Design does offer an explanation, however unlikable, for its unknowns.

Eliminate the impossible and what remains, however improbable, must be the truth – Sherlock Holmes

No, we know for a FACT that the sun WILL rise tomorrow. It is a law, as sure as any scientific law. Amendable, but not yet amended. and if you choose to call that fact faith, it is based on millions of years of uncontradicted observation and experience, unlike your faith in a supreme being.

No you don't know for a FACT, there is no way to know for a FACT, not until it happens. Until this is is likely, but still unknown. That is unless you know the future. You can only truly know what has passed and will never know for certain what is to come. We can predict with high probability what is to come, but never really know. If the sun where to explode tonight, the suppossed "LAW" would be broken.

stop trying to make a simplistic semantic argument sound comlicated or important.

The sun rising tomorrow is neither a fact nor a law. It is simply an expected occurrence. We understand why the sun rises. We have seen it happen numerous times. We expect that none of the things that make the sun rise will change between now and tomorrow. That the sun will rise tomorrow is a well educated inference.

With respect to God, you can't measure him, understand him (according to Thomas Aquinas), see him, or prove his existence. His existence is entirely based on faith of the believers. I can't imagine a weaker foundation for a hypothesis such as ID than that. Can you?

2 points

1 I don't believe in creationsism, ID, or evolution. I believe there is a being more knowledgable than us, and that they most likely have something to do with our life here on earth.

2 if the argument, however simplistic, has application to the larger argument, then it should be used. If you had read the entire Original Post, you would see that one single piece was taken out argued against, semantically I might add. That semantic argument was then offered as proof against then entire argument. False logic.

tdnelway:

No you don't know for a FACT, there is no way to know for a FACT, not until it happens. Until this is is likely, but still unknown. That is unless you know the future. You can only truly know what has passed and will never know for certain what is to come. We can predict with high probability what is to come, but never really know. If the sun where to explode tonight, the suppossed "LAW" would be broken.

Yes, we DO know it for a fact. All the laws impacting on whether the Sun will "rise" tomorrow are known, and sunrise can be and is predicted with accuracy for all regions of the globe, and well into the future. We also know that the Sun will NOT explode tomorrow. You're arguing foolishness.

Again, absence of evidence should not be used as evidence of absence.

You know of course that you can't prove the negative so why do you even argue this point. I can't prove that small monkeys didn't just fly out of your bum. Very small ones that have the ability to warp to an alternate universe when I try to find them. Nonetheless, I am REALLY sure this didn't happen.

With your last statement, you make it sound like it is my job to prove that God exists or doesn't. Well you said that he exists, not me. That makes it officially YOUR job.

tdnelway:

Again, absence of evidence should not be used as evidence of absence.

That is true enough. However, if you have no evidence for an idea then it has no place in science.

Evolution is well documented, makes predictions that have been confirmed and depends on verifiable facts. ID claims to be scientific but fails to make any testable prediction. Creationism, is pure faith and not subject to scientific reason.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that explains why the sun 'rises'. There is also the fact, yes fact, that it has done so each and every day of my life, it is an observable event. It becomes a reasonable expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's not faith defined as b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof .

I'm relying on scientific analysis and observable past events to inform my opinion that yes the sun will rise tomorrow. There's plenty of proof that it will.

"tdnelway wrote the following post at 07/22/2008 11:27 AM:

For those that argue that the use of faith is ignorance at its worst, your argument is infantile..."

I'd concur, especially re things we believe in scientific area. Unless we perform the rigourous analysis and/or experimentation to give us independent confirmation - which nobody has time or capability to do - we are pretty much taking of the rest of what we believe on faith.

What are you talking about? Scientists work continously to prove things as other scientists try to disprove things. If you have an issue with something that has been demonstrated scientifically, then come up with an alternate TESTABLE hypothesis and let's give it a go.

So back to the point...the loss of an organ in no way explains how one was formed in the first place. Things are more easily lost or destroyed then created or formed. Both knowledge and technology follow the same principle.

An empty room with an empty light socket might well be explained that the bulb was removed because the occupant moved out. That provides no explanation for how the light was created in the first place.

The point is not whether either or both theories are correct, but that the article has no bearing other than to show an example of how something no longer used can be lost.

More significantly the article showed that the salamanders lost the genetic means to make the eyes which is distinct from atrophy and that they became more fit for their environment in the process.