isn't belief in evolution also matter of faith?
Answers
Answer:
Look at all civilizations. Assuming that all the calendar years are aligned correctly, the longest one is less than 4,500 years from today. Anything further than that contains myths. In Chinese mythology, for example, a giant called 盘古 (Pangu) created the universe from the dark chaos, after having slept for 18,000 years. He used a big ax to hit the chaos fiercely and the lighter one became heaven and the heavier one became the earth. Becoming exhausted in kicking the heaven to make it higher and higher, Pangu finally fell down after many years. His breath turned into winds of 4 seasons and clouds; his voice became thunders; his two eyes became the sun and the moon; his four limbs became the east, west, south and the north poles; his body and flesh became the wide land; his blood became rivers and streams; his sweat became the rain and dew that nourished every living thing.
Other civilizations have similar mythologies of the beginning of the universe.
According to macroevolution, somehow organic materials (Primordial Soup) gathered together, somehow, these non-living organic materials became a living cell, and somehow this living cell turned into some living life forms, somehow these living life forms became fish, then creeping things, then mammals, then birds. Then somehow after 4.5 billion years, humans appeared at the 11-th hour. The most complicated human in terms of mental faculty somehow evolved relatively much quickly. Doesn’t it sound mythological, somehow?
In the court of law, reliable eye-witness accounts are the deciding factors of a past event.
There was no eye-witness for Creation. The only difference between the ideology of macroevolution and other mythologies is that there is no “superman” like Pangu. Macroevolution is using science as a front to cook up past history, for which there was no direct observation and proof. These events, if true, are histories and thus not repeatable, and not controllable as in the lab, not replicable, and not provable. All the “evidence” requires many assumptions that are not provable.
Granted, E. Coli adapts and changes, but after millions of generations in the laboratories, it is still E Coli, a bug. This is not evolution but adaptation.
Darwin’s speculation of evolution by natural selection and random mutation is being questioned by scientists to be a “theory” to explain the origins of species. ) on scientific grounds. Biological systems are intrinsically very complex; no basic physics can predict the existence of DNA, then you have epigenetics, as DNA is not enough to tell which genes will turn on and off.
Macroevolution is not science. The way people believe it is similar to how religious people believe in the absolute truth. He or she really has to believe in this “somehow” non-life can turn into life, somehow the human mind can evolute to create music, arts, philosophies, and yes, do science that explains the current observations (operational science) not about the origins.