Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[Harris]

Humiliation? No, just frustration when creationist morons repeat the same debunked bullshit that has been repeatedly debunked by actual scientists and then act like children and ignore the facts presented to them.

To answer the question of the thread: It's a science. Creationism is a claim, nothing more.

If you can bring hard evidence favouring Theory of Evolution then simply submit them otherwise abstract talking is not science.

---

No but really, I think he's gone.

Don’t worry I am not gone. I am little slow in responding, nothing else.

---

All he is trying to achieve is to justify his faith by saying it's OK to have faith, we all do it, and that we shouldn't split hairs over the contents of our respective faiths.

The reason I know they're delusional is because they cannot and won't accept 2 simple premises.
1) That there is the minutest possibility that "god" may not exist.
2) That they don't need to prove "god" to us using science and logic.

You are looking for logic; I will give one to show how deluded the concepts are in atheism.

For you (atheist) mind is the brain which has nothing transcendence. For you (atheist) brain evolve in time and it is the end product of a mindless and unguided process. Do you think anyone would trust a computer, which he/she knows is the end product of mindless and unguided process?


Here is the paradox; you (atheist) trust your brain, which is the product of unguided and mindless process, to believe in the theory that your brain is the product of mindless, unguided, blind process. This approach is ridiculous and it is self-contradictory. This kind of extreme reductionism that reduces thought simply to the firing of the neurons in the brain is suicidal.

---

Re the OP: I take it on faith that what can be repeated in the lab and which has been peer reviewed in science journals is provisionally the best we can do where empirical questions are concerned. So I'm going to go way out on a limb and accept science -including evolution- on faith over what ever any holy book may be interpreted as saying to the contrary. That's just the way I roll.

Many people think that when we have scientific explanation of something we don’t need God. People like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkins say to the people, “you have got to choose between science and God.” The first thing to clear up here is that they imagined God to be a kind of god of the gaps (I cannot explain it therefore, God did it). Now, if you think of God like that then of course you ask people to choose between God and science because the more God the less science or more science the less God. However, that is not true in the light of the religious definition of God that says God is the creator of the whole show. He is the God of things that we understand and He is the God of things that we don’t understand. So summing up what we have here two kinds of explanation.

1. Explanation in terms of law and the mechanism on the one hand and
2. Explanation in terms of agency on the other hand.

It is absurd to suggest that an explanation in terms of law and mechanism rules out the existence of the agency and yet that is exactly what people are arguing in the case of explanation of the universe.