Poop Shute

I have heard this argument before and I didn't understand it. I still don't, but it's starting to piss me off.

Bible-carrying folk of a certain kind have often accused scientists of having "faith" in their science akin to the faith that christians have in their funny book and their bearded man in the sky. They claim that the scientists are just as close-minded, just leaning in the opposite direction.

What?

Let's look at the definition of faith for a moment, according to WEBSTER'S ONLINE

faith: ('fAth) noun 2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

YOURDICTIONARY.COM had this to say:

faith: ('fAth) n Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Let's start with "-does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Let me ask you this, if while standing on the earth you throw a ball in the air, will it fall back to the ground? Yes, of course it will. Is that proof? Not necassarily, BUT it is material evidence, without question. So, would my belief in gravity be without "logical proof or material evidence" ? Nope.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple: I can test the theory of gravity by throwing something in the air, or I can discover evidence of evolution by studying various different branches of biology and see the connections that scientists have made. I can even talk to the creators of these theories and the discoverers of some evidence and question them and debate with them if I so chose. I do not have to blindly believe these things just because someone told me it was so. I can see for myself the why and the how of these things and learn how to gather my own evidence. Faith in theology allows for no such tangible options. I can interview a priest, but what material evidence can he give me? What logical proof can the Bible offer?

Also, saying that a scientist has faith in a theory also implies that he is dogmatic and inflexible and will hold steadfast to his findings even in the face of contrary evidence. Granted, there certainly are scientists like that, but they are not good scientists. A good paleontologist would not continue to insist that the brontosaurus was a real dinosaur. A good physicist would not go around teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. As new evidence surfaces, old theories get scrapped. The general motivation of science in its purest form is to explain how things work based on various observed data, and subsequently with new data comes new explanations. In contrast, faith does NOT operate that way. Do certain faithful Bible scholars scrap the idea that the earth is 6000 years-old when faced with carbon-dating and geological findings? No, they don't, they scoff at overwhelming evidence of the earth's age and maintain that the scientists are failing a test by God or some such thing.

Keep in mind, I am not attacking christianity as a whole, just those special few who insist on arguing with science as if it were a competing religion or something. The beautful elegance of science is that it does not require any leap of faith, it requires no other work on the part of the individual than the ability to pay attention and connect the dots.