By evolution I mean the strong form, whereby all life evolved from a fish, or a spark of light, or whatever. Darwin himself was a great thinker and an inveterate experimenter and observer, and I think we have done him a great disservice by making evolution anything more than the hypothesis which he presented it as.
Nasty stuff, evidence. You do well to keep away from it, makes you glow at night.
Perhaps you could clarify your point a bit more: Why do you think it was a disservice? And why should evolution only remain a hypothesis as he presented it?
One doesn’t believe or disbelieve in evolution. You can either choose to accept the evidence in it’s favor or reject it. It doesn’t require any faith to accept the evidence but it would take an enourmous leap of faith to reject it, considering how much of it there is and the fact that virtually every expert in the field accepts it.
There’s plenty of objective evidence to support evolution. In fact, it’s actually been observed to happen in several species of micro-organisms.
But I have to admit I’ve never heard the idea that anything evolved from a “spark of light” before now. That might be your own invention.
Fair enough, but I believe it has been mooted. What do you think human beings evolved from ultimately?
Evolution is correct; creationism is bullsh*t.
What was the debate, again?
Stars.
What? Think big I always say. 
Evolution is a fact.
Some species die out and other species which weren’t there before take their place, over the course of millions of years.
This is evolution. It is a fact.
Now, what you’re talking about is the Theory of Evolution, ie. a mechanism which explains this fact. I have not found any entity which could not be explained by this Theory, and so I feel that supernatural explanations are unnecessary.
I see no contradiction between evolution and “intelligent design.”
Not just micro-organisms either. Here’s one example. There’s those milk-bottle-opening magpies in Australia too, but I never did figure out if that was a myth or not.
I have always considered that evolution was “intelligent design”. If you accept the Biblical account of creation as the metaphor it is, you can say, rather God created the heavan and earth in 6 days, that “it took time”. I don’t know that God didn’t use evolution as a tool for creation. In the big picture you can only go so far before you have to have faith. Even the “big bang” was devine (unknown and unknowable) you have to have faith in it.
Considering that the definition of “faith” is “belief without evidence,” I’d say the answer to the OP is no, it takes no faith at all to believe evolution. Believing that ID is correct, on the other hand, is the definition of faith.
This touches on what I think many theists of the sort that call atheism a religion find incomprehensible about atheists. Atheists are comfortable with not knowing and don’t feel the need to make up an answer such as “God”. Sure we’re interested in the answer and willing to hypothesize, guess, speculate and investigate; but not knowing is okay.
Theists seem to need a pat answer to the questions of “where we came from” and “how did it all begin”. Since the true answer is “we don’t know (yet)”, they make up a “God” or “Intelligent Design” to give an answer. The problem is, if you accept God as the answer, then there’s really no impetus to investigate and find the real answer.
So, no, atheists don’t have faith in the Big Bang or Evolution. These are simply explanations that fit the available evidence. We’re perfectly willing to accept another explanation if it fits the evidence better. We don’t go so far and then have faith. We go so far and then say, “We don’t know. We’ll have to keep searching for the answer.”
They can’t be the same thing if that is what you mean. Evolution is an unguided process and therefore necessarily without an objective. It makes no claims as to whether an intelligence started it off. ID is the opposite and necessarily requires a creator (an intelligent designer), who constantly micro-manages towards an end (a design).
Which do you think is true?
The OP seems a bit confused…
Still Darwin himself could only label his work as a hypothesis or theory. Too definitely prove evolution is very very complicated and probably a long time.
Evolution is complicated and not necessarily easy to grasp. Whilst God almighty creating everything is very easy to grasp. I usually like simple answers… but not childish ones.
Referring to evolution as only a theory is not a disparagement. Gravity is a theory. Electromagnetism is a theory. A theory is not some wishy washy bunch of guesses but a framework used to explain observations and make predictions which can be tested with further observations. In any case, it is irrelevant how Darwin described it as there has been a century and a half of research into the topic since then. As a theory it can never be conclusively proven but its strength comes from the failure to disprove it despite the falsifiability that qualifies it as a scientific theory.
Ah, but we’re talking about an ineffable omniscient diety, aren’t we?
So, IOD gives a puff and there’s the universe in its first seconds after the Big Bang. No more micro-management is needed, because IOD knew the exact right way to puff to make things turn out exactly the way they are here in the Year of Our Lord 2004.
Ineffable, you see?
-Joe, athiest auditioning for the ID lecture circuit - big money, dontcha know?
Well you’ve come to the right place. Not a myth.
This is nonsensical. I’ve never heard anyone promote such a concept. It helps to have an idea of what you’re talking about before you criticize it.
He never presented evolution (meaning the possibility of gradual change of the characteristics of a species over time) as a hypothesis. It was an established fact in his time, just as it is today. Succeeding generations of the same species often exhibit a wide spectrum of variability. Without it, the dog breeder would be out of a job.
Straight Dope Classic: What’s with Bulldogs? They don’t look like bulls to me.
A skilled breeder can create a variety of a species with specific characteristics and abilities, through careful, deliberate selection.
As a young naturalist, Darwin the observer travelled to the Galapogos archipeligo and noticed, among other things, that each island had its own variety of finch, of a different size and featuring a differently shaped beak than those of other islands, but mostly with the same colorings, almost as if each type of finch had been bred from a common stock.
Not willing to go by his own opinion on faith, Darwin the experimenter became a breeder. The first pages of “On the Origin of Species” goes into excrutiating detail on his work with pigeons. He realized that given enough generations to work with, deliberate breeding could create two varieties of the smae being that were so different, they could not interbreed, hence creating two new species.
All that was needed to explain phenomena such as the Galapogos finches was some mechanism by which they could have been selected as though by a deliberate breeder.
The differently shaped beaks of each type of finch proved to be ideal for consuming the types of fruit and nuts specific to the island they inhabited. He concluded that, while finches might be born with a variety of beak shapes, those with less favorable beaks might die of starvation before they reached breeding age. Thus, the environment would have deselcted them for breeding.
He concluded, then, that this “Natural Selection” process took the place of the intelligent breeder in the wild as a mechanism by which new species came into being.
Over the years, Darwin’s results have been reporduced countless times, and various implications of his work have proved to be accurate in explaining later observations. Hence his “hypothesis” has been elevated to the highest loft a scientific idea can acheive: a Theory.
Properly referred to as the Theory of Natural Selection, which explains evolution, it is often improperly called the Theory of Evolution, leading to much additional confusion among the already confused.
Initially, the church had little problem Darwin, because his idea seemed so absurd. Just under 6,000 years (the presumed age of the Earth at the time) was such a short duration to explain the wide variety of life seen, that even Darwin admitted it didn’t make a lot of sense, and revised his work several times in response to try and explain his way around this criticism.
It was only when later work in geology showed the earth to be billions of years old that Darwin’s Natural Selection (which did a great job of explaining everything except the time discrepancy) came to be fully accepted. And yet, for some reason, the ID people never go after the geologists that were really the ones that screwed the pooch on the Darwin deal.
Intelligence is not currently necessary to explain life as seen on earth. That’s the legacy of Darwin. This does not preclude you from believing that some intelligent entity, capable of subtly manipulating conditions here on earth, brought things to be the way they are for whatever reason known only to them, but until some observation shows such an entity to be absolutely necessary in the model, it is absurd to use the bounty of Earth as irrefutable evidence of God’s existence. It’s been refuted.
We are not even close to understanding the nature of intelligence to the point where we can declare conclusively what can or can not be done without its intervention, so any ID hypotheses are doomed to be just that for a long, long time.