Blind faith and evolution

[Cyberman]

Also, the origins of the Universe itself is taken on a measure of faith.

No it's not. Seriously, I's not. Even if relevant scientists have to speculate about the conditions at the point of the beginning, such speculation is used to fuel investigation. They don't simply stop there and believe they fouind the answer.

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.

Science isn't decided by debate. Also I question your use of the word 'intense' in this context. Do you have data for this claim? Show your work!

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.

You do realise that the total energy of the Universe is zero, right?

2. It also had to have a catalyst of some kind to expand.

I've said this many times: consider the whole Universe compressed into a singularity. All matter, all time, even all of space itself. What reason do we have to think that such a structure would be stable? We already know atomic structures break down spontaneously. Why should the start of the Universe be any different in this regard? I'm not claiming to have all the answers of course, but isn't that better than just assuming there isn't one?

3. Whatever influenced it had to have at least the same power and not obey the laws of physics as we understand them today.

I'm going to apparently contradict my previous statement (and then commit seppoku for the hideous split infinitive). Anyway, the laws of physics inevitably break down (aaagh - another one!) under extreme conditions, such as at the Big Bang. Convenient, perhaps. Blame Einstein.

With those three observations we hold to a small measure that again nature brought our universe into existence.

You have to go wherever the evidence leads. So far, nothing to do with the Big Bang has a face on it.

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.

I wish people would stop harping on about logic as though it was the ultimate, indeed the only, tool in the box. Logic has to be grounded in reality or else you can reason yourself round in circles until you disappear up your own arse. It tends to give one a somewhat narrow, dark and smelly view of the world.