religion

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Something that just popped into my head is I think the issue I personally have is you can almost never claim science to be false, because science claims it is always evolving and since we don't know everything, we must accept the knowledge we have till a later date. For example, evolution could be completely 100% fabricated, but we have to accept that is what it is that this time, even more so if you don't believe in God. Maybe the belief in God extends to that people need something else to believe in because science is false at time.

This is actually fairly similar to my beef with creationism. It's an unfalsifiable argument; no matter what the advancement in science reveals, no matter how heavy the hammer blows of scrupulous experimentation and hard, scientific results, the creationist can always attribute it to a supreme creator of the universe. An argument such as this, an argument which can always explain away any new discovery by saying it was made by a grand, unfaltering creator, no matter how ignorant we were of said new discovery's existence before we discovered it, is absolutely unfalsifiable and therefore unsound.

Evolution on the other hand makes no claims without due evidence. Evolution doesn't even claim to be right - everything within the purview of evolution and science is completely falsifiable. You are free to go conduct any experiment you so desire in order to achieve results that fall contrary to the consensus, and in doing so you also have the opportunity to debunk the consensus. And scientists would love that. Scientists love new evidence, they absolutely love it when the consensus changes and they are proven wrong, because this is the unfailing sign that humanity has progressed and our minds have expanded.