Actually there is a small measure of faith that one must have to accept evolution (I do not want to say believe, since that word semantically implies lack of deductive logic). Evolution so far can only explain speciation and adaptation. However, several mysteries still remain right now. One is consciousness (or sentience), Neurology is making a lot of head way in figuring out this mysterious spontaneous "miracle"; however, it is unknown still on when and what mechanics caused sentience to come about. The mystery is only reinforced by the fact that Dinosaurs existed 100s of millions of years longer than Homo Sapiens, and they did not gain sentience to any significant degree. Where faith comes into play, and myself agree with it, is the notion that nature still brought it about. This speculation is only supported through inductive reasoning.
Also, the origins of the Universe itself is taken on a measure of faith. Since we do not know the dynamics of how our universe came into existence. This question has spurred intense debate in the cosmology, physics, astronomy, and theoretical physics fields. We do know several deductive facts regarding the origins of our universe. 1. Whatever "existed" prior to our universe. It had to have contained all potential energy of our universe. 2. It also had to have a catalyst of some kind to expand. 3. Whatever influenced it had to have at least the same power and not obey the laws of physics as we understand them today. With those three observations we hold to a small measure that again nature brought our universe into existence.
Now do I call those "blind" faith, no blind faith by definition is faith without rational and logical reason to have faith into it. Blind faith means exactly as the name implies "blind". It means you have no deductive or even inductive logic to apply to it. You simply have faith in it because you choose to. So "blind" faith in regards to science cannot exist as most "faith" in science has reasoning and deductive/inductive reasoning behind it.
Also, the origins of the Universe itself is taken on a measure of faith. Since we do not know the dynamics of how our universe came into existence. This question has spurred intense debate in the cosmology, physics, astronomy, and theoretical physics fields. We do know several deductive facts regarding the origins of our universe. 1. Whatever "existed" prior to our universe. It had to have contained all potential energy of our universe. 2. It also had to have a catalyst of some kind to expand. 3. Whatever influenced it had to have at least the same power and not obey the laws of physics as we understand them today. With those three observations we hold to a small measure that again nature brought our universe into existence.
Now do I call those "blind" faith, no blind faith by definition is faith without rational and logical reason to have faith into it. Blind faith means exactly as the name implies "blind". It means you have no deductive or even inductive logic to apply to it. You simply have faith in it because you choose to. So "blind" faith in regards to science cannot exist as most "faith" in science has reasoning and deductive/inductive reasoning behind it.
![[Image: grumpy-cat-and-jesus-meme-died-for-sins.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-_GaCN-f8ZFo%2FUNfmimTyf4I%2FAAAAAAAANmk%2FoakT_wL319U%2Fs1600%2Fgrumpy-cat-and-jesus-meme-died-for-sins.jpg)
I would be a televangelist....but I have too much of a soul.
