Observed evolution is a fact, and also a theory. As with any science, you cannot say dogmatically “THIS IS TRUE!!!”. Therefore, I also say that my evidence-based beliefs come with certain confidence levels. The confidence level for evolution is very very high (but not 100%). We could be wrong. The confidence level for big bang theory is a bit lower – lots of evidence but a few sticking points. The confidence level for YEC is about as close to zero as you can get – BUT I COULD BE WRONG.

There are other categories, too, that I think will help you out a bit here.

We can say with 100% certainty that, even if modern evolutionary theory is wrong, it is at the very least a close approximation to reality. The data we have support this conclusion. There is a parallel to this – Newtonian gravitational theory, even though it is known to be “wrong”, is still a close approximation to reality.

On the other hand, most of the claims of all YEC authors have been shown, by observation of the available evidence, to be utterly wrong. Thus, we can say with 100% certainty that, even if our theories of evolution, planetary formation etc. are wrong, YEC is still wrong. Utterly, completely and indisputibly wrong.

Thus, even though we cannot be 100% certain about what reality is, we can be 100% certain about some of the things reality isn’t.

IMO there are two types of belief: evidence-based and faith-based. I say that my beliefs are evidence-based. I have not actually gone and done the science myself, but I believe it based on accumulated evidence.

Observed evolution is a fact, and also a theory. As with any science, you cannot say dogmatically “THIS IS TRUE!!!”. Therefore, I also say that my evidence-based beliefs come with certain confidence levels. The confidence level for evolution is very very high (but not 100%). We could be wrong. The confidence level for big bang theory is a bit lower – lots of evidence but a few sticking points. The confidence level for YEC is about as close to zero as you can get – BUT I COULD BE WRONG.

Even though the IDiots have no evidence whatsoever, if they ever say “here is some evidence” we must approach it with an open mind – this is skepticism.

However, I don’t think this means we have to live our lives as if all scientific knowledge were in doubt.

Here’s another way of looking at it. As an athiest, I would never say “there is no god – I know it because it is a fact”. What I do say is “I reject all extant god hypotheses due to lack of supporting evidence”. Maybe there is some sort of god somewhere, but there is no evidence of it so I will proceed assuming the universe is completely natural. Similarly, there is a gigantic mountain of evidence supporting evolution, so I will proceed as if evolution were absolutely true. All the while, keeping a lookout for more evidence, pro or con. This, I (evidence-based) believe, is the true nature of science.

I mean, sure, turtles all the way down, no. Just, I only mean to invoke turtles … a fair way down, but ending at some point. At the moment there is only one turtle, and its imaginary friend the other turtle that does not exist. Still, I prefer to think there might be a few more turtles. Not an infinite amount, but definitely more than one. It’s just that the universe is so, so very, big, and we know practically nothing about so many aspects of it’s structure and content, and its history. Just a few more turtles.

Since this is way OT anyway I thought I might chime in. Marcion dates from the 2nd century CE. One of the firm dates we have is 144 CE which was the year that Marcion was excommunicated for heresy by the Chrisitian Church at Rome. His followers continued for several centuries after his death. Marcion is usually considered a Gnostic although this is much debated by historians. The Gnostics believed in Gnosis (i.e., hidden knowledge) and they also believed that Yahweh is an evil god who is different than a greater God who is good. It was also Marcion who developed the first Christian canon which consisted of the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul.

First, I think you’re getting into much more detail than I intended. I’ll stick with my contention that a lot (not all) of the fundamentalists harbor doubts about their faith based on my observations if nothing else — though the one website quoted (reasons[to believe].org) pretty much gives it away in its punchline coupled wiht its use of science (such as that use is). Such doubts coupled with a dogmatic faith are one form of cognitive dissonance. But that item aside:

At issue in the religious fundamentalism/creationist debate are some underlying mindsets that are not true for a lot of various Christians. A person can claim to believe in the Bible, be a Christian, and:

- interpret it literally — resulting in a young-Earth, etc. outlook. Depending on which of these you might speak with the specific person will assert a literal 6000 yr age of the Earth as we measure time now. Another one from another church would use a more allegorical approach–that a day for God is like a 1000 years for us. Its not hard to find Creationists that seem harmonious that disagree strenously if they happen to get together & debate the finer points of their philosophy. Some don’t seem to know why the figure is what it is and merely parrot what they’ve heard their pastor say, etc. (I’ve heard some be more flexibile– 6000 to 10,000 years, but no more.).

- interpret it as allegorical — resulting in a wide range of outlooks; by some perspectives the Catholic Church falls in this category (and that veiw is fluid, see below).

- believe in evolution as compatible with thier intepretation approach to the Bible,

- or flatly reject evolution as totally incompatible with their interpretation approach to the Bible

- Put another way, a scientist might or might not believe in God (and a sizeable proportion do; over 30 percent by some surveys), the Bible, etc. and knowing that level of detail doesn’t really tell someone much regarding what they might believe. I know a PhD chemist that recognizes the evolution of ‘germs’ & related matters, but cannot accept evolution.

Those are just the obvious items.

++> Thus, being a “Christian” covers a lot of potential incompatible philosophical & theological territory with dogmatic certainty based on interpretation of the Bible (Christians come in a wide variety of “flavors” and its not unusual for a given person to change their theology in some fundamentally substantial ways). From my observation, most don’t have the details worked out for most positions; and if questioned its not hard to see they make up the details as they ramble on (especially if one remembers & queries them much later on the same point & gets a different answer).

Also, for example, note the Catholic Church recently (this century) finally changed its views on the Earth-as-Center-of-the-Universe model of creation (thereby saving Galileo). That’s a pretty big switch–and the words still in the Bible readily support a Earth-Centered-Universe …. those that literally interpret the Bible can’t (or at least very few can) accept that given scientific findings…so they pretty much ignore those details.

That one book is the basis for numerous Christian denominations split from Catholocism…and the various adherents will commonly argue about various details to the point of raging fury. All of which highlights that a single book can be stretched to cover just about any outlook a person might want. How its “stretched” to cover some position is often a function of a given person’s outlook/mood at a given point in time.

Printing it on latex rubber sheets, or Silly Putty, to cover the theological & philosophical territory its used to cover — literally (like the most extreme interpretations go — somehow seems appropriate.

By the way, none of this is really new. Back around 400 AD-ish (I don’t recall the specifics, but it was early) was a guy named Marcion who analysed the Old & New Testaments of the Bible & concluded the God of the Old Testament was too mercurial to be the “good” God of the New Testament. That religion, Marcionism, almost beat out the Christianity we know today (maybe it was around 400 AD that the Church, with political authority, pretty much finish wiping out Marcionism). Oprah’s recent remarks regarding religion (check YouTube) sound fundamentally a lot like Marcionism resurrected (though I doubt she’s aware of that). Which highlights that people create the God they want/need–which feeds some psychological need. On the other hand, some invent a God that gives them power (e.g. the Divine Right of Kings & any wacko cult leader) so they can exploit/control others.