A letter to an angry evolutionist

I read an angry letter from an evolutionist (are they all angry?) who said that belief in creation was just faith; and that you didn't need faith to believe in evolution. (As it was all so plainly true.) The man clearly didn't know what faith meant. [1]
I see in his comment evidence how the insistence by Darwinists that E. is a fact has distorted people's ability to think straight. People seem to be losing their grip on what rationality consists of; of fact truth is, of what facts are, of what faith is; of how our finiteness affects us, and of what knowledge is.

Quotes and comments;

A. "Atheism is an ABSENCE of faith, not a presence.
Evolution requires NO faith, since it is known to happen, has been observed to happen, and makes testable predictions." [2.]

- The man is apparently under the delusion that if he believes X to be true, it is true; and that someone else believes non-x, what they believe is false, and believed only on faith. Such a person has no idea what faith is, nor does he know what knowledge is. All knowledge is based on faith in certain basic assumptions.

The heavy handed insistence evolution is a fact (and E. is conveniently not defined) disparages things like belief, theory, supposition, opinion, etc. There is nothing wrong with these concepts; and in reality (if that matters in the emotionally supercharged environment we live in) these are all we have. We don't have facts. (If fact is defined as certain knowledge of reality.) This is the painful truth of our existence.

For Evolution (M2M) to be a fact it would have to conform exactly to reality; for that to happen we'd have to know that reality existed, what it was, and have to know it perfectly. (and to know we knew it, and how we knew it; and that we were correct in all our suppositions about it.) We'd have to believe we were capable of knowing reality.

For the E. this means believing (on faith I might add) that a random physical process could create a mind capable of knowing reality. It means believing that the chemical reactions in the brain are inherently rational. For E. to be a fact, we'd have to know how living organisms could emerge from inert matter. There is no scientific basis for believing this, and whoever does believe it believes it on faith.

Before we could say evolution was a face we'd have to know how some 'primitive' bit of protoplasm could 'evolve' into complex animals, and that one of these could magically (going contrary to entropy) evolve into a human being.

For E. to be fact we'd have to believe that the impersonal can give birth to the personal; that the non-intelligent can give birth to intelligence. We'd have to believe that random chance can produce complex, specified information. We'd have to believe the chemicals can produce the genetic code. These are a few of the things we'd have to know for E. to be a fact. The reality is that none of these things are certain knowledge. This means that M2M evolution cannot possibly be a fact.

To say E. isn't a fact doesn't mean it doesn't have some approximation to reality. That's another story. To say there are few (if any) facts doesn't mean all beliefs are equally valid. To say there are no facts doesn't mean that some reality doesn't exist, by which we could judge their approximate veracity.

When he says E. is a fact he shows us he's been deceived by his school teachers. In his ignorance of philosophy he thinks knowledge is a simple thing. In his ignorance of biology (and of critiques of E. theories) he imagines the origins of living organisms is a simple matter. If he wants to come to a better understanding of the issues at hand he's got a lot of work to do. Understanding can't be had by simply affirming the distortions and half truths taught in our government schools.

Conclusion;
If all is matter in motion then no such thing as freedom exists. This being the case why is our evolutionist so mad? Why is he mad at all. On his worldview, the creationist can't help believing what he does. (He might want to ask himself if all is matter in motion, acting in terms of physical laws, why do people have varying ideas about origins?)

Notes;
1. Faith; 'The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general. - John Locke [Century Dictionary]
2. Polarized reaction to atheists’ refusal to debate CMI - Creation.com
- A letter to the website (Creation.com) reads;
"Atheism is an ABSENCE of faith, not a presence.
Evolution requires NO faith, since it is known to happen, has been observed to happen, and makes testable predictions. Furthermore it has nothing at all to do with the making of the world—that is the province of astrophysics and geology." - Gregory Tingey
- He's wrong that evolution (M2M) has nothing to do with the 'making' of the world. The supposed 'emergence' of living organisms from inert matter certainly is a matter that lies within the domain of evolutionary theory. (The theory purports to give an account for all life on earth.) Has he forgotten Darwin's famous drawing of the tree of life? Has he forgotten his claim the first primordial cell 'emerged' from a warm pond?
2. Faith;
- The root of faith is trust. Everyone who believes in M2M evolution does so on the basis of trust. i.e. they believe (trust) that the things their professors and teachers told them were accurate. (I can assure not all of them were.) They also trust that reality exists, and that they know what it consists of. They have faith that man is capable of understanding reality. They trust that man's mind can comprehend and express true propositions. They trust that the popular apologists for evolution are telling the truth. They trust that living organisms can somehow spontaneously emerge from inert matter. (And so on.) They also trust that anyone who disagrees with them is inescapably wrong. (Which means they trust that something called truth exists; a claim many of our professors deny by the way.)