From: "Steve Ewing" 

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:40:52 -0500, Gary Britt
 wrote:

> These same people then deride *faith* as though its not
> scientific without even attempting to acknowledge the level of *faith*
> they use everyday in their *belief* systems.

I think it's a matter of degree.

A scientist publishes a peer-reviewed paper.  In it, he describes fossils
of horse-like animals, uncovered in different geological layers, and
progressing in features from a more-primitive to a more-modern appearing
horse-like animal.  There are gaps in the progression.  I am likely to
*believe* his assertion that the gaps can be filled when more fossils are
uncovered.  I will also revise that belief if the assertion is disproved:
it is not a blind faith that this theory *must* be true to the dismissal of
all evidence to the contrary.

An IDer holds up a book written thousands of years ago by persons unknown,
and says that an Intelligent Designer created all those fossils and placed
them carefully in those layers in that precise order, just to jerk the
above scientist's chain.  That's a different kind of *faith*.

--
Steve 
http://www.qmss.com/~sewing

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5