Science Fights Back

Isn't science about observation and open-mindedness? It seems scientists are open-minded about everything except for educated faith in the unseen (oh wait, they have that, it's called a theory). The moment science becomes intolerant and close-minded when it comes to theories such as evolution, it ceases to be effective.

I say, if there is evidence to support a creation account (any at all), there should be some room to talk about it in educational institutions.

The problem is, many think that science and faith are incompatible. The truth is that even great and glorious Science depends on faith at some level.

I’m not advocating one view over the other, what I’m saying is that there needs to be some room left in the fields of science to explore issues that might not have an easy, understandable explanation using present empirical evidence.

It used to be that science believed that the world was flat. Was it wrong? You bet it was. Is it possible that current beliefs (there’s faith again) held by science about origins could be off or wrong in some way?

Trust us. We're scientists.

"It used to be that science believed that the world was flat. Was it wrong? You bet it was."

I presume you refer to the modern mythology that belief in a flat Earth continued to the time of Columbus. Well, that myth could be partially correct . . . for you see, although rational-minded folks like Ptolemy had long since divined the spherical nature of the world, and although even during the Dark Ages its roundness was generally accepted, there were always a few dissenting voices, voices which you identify as scientists. I would question that identification, since of course these "scientists" of yours were invariably full of dogmatic religious zeal. But hey, no matter.

"Is it possible that current beliefs (there’s faith again) held by science about origins could be off or wrong in some way?"

If all of modern cosmology, geology, biology, genetics, and so on were indeed wrong, I can tell you that we would only discover this . . . and indeed, that we could only replace them . . . via the same rational and scientific means by which we got to where our understanding is now. Unlike religions with their articles of faith, heresies, and so on, science is open to change depending on the *objective evidence*. As one's personal faith is subjective evidence proving nothing except the belief itself, I wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting for science to confirm your personal belief system.

A better idea would be to adjust your personal belief system to include the honest, rational, and educated conclusions of science. (Just skip the quantum physics . . . nobody understands that anyway.)

There is a difference between science and theology, one is taught in the church and the other is taught in school. If you want creationism taught in school it should not be put in the science curriculum, instead it should be included in philosophy or theology. One thing I have not heard from creationist is whether or not science should be taught in their churches. I think that they would take offense to that notion. The same way scientist take offense of the notion that creationism is science. Oh yeah and one other little thing that needs to be considered and that is something called the separation between church and state.

Get out more ppl.

And yea the world isn't flat.

-THE KID