The scientific method clearly signals out "observations" in its steps.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Lol, even in the video they speakers gave plenty of observed examples for the Evolution Theory. You can choose to ignore the examples to the premises that no fish grew legs in one generation mutation.
But it is an observable fact that species evolve.
I think the easiest way to help you understand the mistake of the reporter is the human tail!
Do you know that we used to have a full tail? Have a look here (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality )
All those characteristics are evidence of evolution.
That we can not find the full chain from a fish to human it does not refute it.
And based with the evidence we currently have it is still the most probable theory!
And of course there is a probability that it is wrong. But faith has nothing to do with it.
If someone suggests a more probable theory and gives the appropriate observations, then the scientific world will adopt it.
It is exactly the same with the big bang theory.
We have observations that indicate the big bang theory.
And under those premises the most probable theory is the big bang theory.
Another theory could be this:
VIDEO
But which is more probable?
Some questions, science answers them with a confidence! Over time by collecting more observations and performing more experiments we can increase or decrease that confidence.
But in practice we can never reach a 100% confidence.
Faith comes with a 0% confidence and 100% belief
When for something we have no evidence, we say we believe it is like that!
Having 0 evidence does not necessarily makes the belief wrong.
For example: We have no evidence that Heaven or Hell exist. Some people believe at the existence of heaven and hell, while others do not.
Statistically, speaking we have no indication of who is right. In terms of quantum physics it is a 50%-50% chance that the heaven & hell at the same time exist and do not exist.
Is now we could scientifically observe that a place exists (other than earth) that directly is affected by the death of humans then we would have an observation for the existence of heaven or hell. That would mean that the confidence of the hypothesis would increase by a chance!
lol, I enjoy this type of discussions!
Cheers
