I'm not talking about scientists. I'm talking about the average Joe evolutionist
We're all scientists, though, just like when you compile your first line of code you are a computer programmer. Scientists are "students of science."
If any of you fit this description, then why do you "believe" in evolution?
If Evolution is on the same shelf as Gravitation, Plate Tectonics, Heliocentrism, Germ Theory, Gene Theory, and Sliding Filament Theory, being that they have all been elevated to the status of Theory, then we must infer that Evolution has a ton of evidence to support it.
We can then view this evidence, see the support for this evidence in real time, and empirically understand that "the pieces fit together, the support holds up to the theses, thus the theory is sound (
for now)".
What's the difference between you subscribing to evolution and someone else believing in creationism
Evolution is put under the scrutiny of the Scientific Method.
1. Observe what's happening
2. Make a hypothesis and predict what will happen
3. Make an experiment to test it
4a. If this doesn't work, go back to Step 2
4b. If this does work, go to Step 5.
5. Publish findings.
6. Go back to Step 2. Repeat immemorial.
Creationism throws testing out the window.
1. Make conclusion
2. Find support for conclusion
^ actually in order
Are they both not just faith in text that they cannot themselves confirm? If not, then why not?
Well you're not the only guy around here who's asking that question. Simply put, the scientists searching for these answers have far stronger credentials than what we common people have (they have Ph.D's in their field of science and are still put under scrutiny by other Ph.D's).
Therefore, it is prudent to allow
them to use their funds to search for answers and put the findings under scrutiny, while it is
our jobs to ask questions to make sure they did not screw up the Scientific Method while doing so.
