Even though science is right, are creationists and anti-scientists winning the battle?

T

thundercatt9

New member
Christians don't hate science (and I've been around a ton of them), this is only a societal conception. Science actually SUPPORTS the bible in many different ways, but christians and non-christians alike will choose to believe what they want to believe. Like previous posters have mentioned, many scientists are Christians and believe that the beliefs of science and God interact harmoniously.

The science is the same, the difference is in the interpretation of the evidence. It is certainly possible to look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion to the Darwin evolutionary position. Indeed, many would see that the evidence fits perfectly well with a design position. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” In other words its science vs science.
 
The battlefield is the human collective consciousness; the winning side is the side with biggest piece of the human collective consciousness. Scientists are armed with the truth backed up by evidence and theories explaining the evidence. Creationists and anti-scientists are armed with lies, half-truths, emotional manipulation and bucket loads of good ol’ fashioned snake oil, but creationists and anti-scientists are still winning, right? More people believe them than the scientists, right? More people want to be deluded than to realize the truth, right? Should scientists stop attacking people with the truth and instead find out what it is that makes people prefer delusion over truth?
 
Something is scientific if it is both testable and falsifiable.

Is evolution testable? If so, how do we test it?
Is it falsifiable? If so, what kind of evidence would hypothetically prove it false?

Due to the great periods of unobservable time involved in evolution, it is impossible to prove evolution is possible. Likewise, on a related note it is also impossible to prove that evolution is the source of our biological origins, as by definition a past event can not be "proven" scientifically.

For example, you can not scientifically "prove" that George Washington was the first president of the United States. You can't grow a new George Washington in a test tube and put him in that office to prove that he did it 200 years ago.
 
Just what you mean by human collective consciousness, I don't know. Just because, they claim to be the majority doesn't make them right or, winning!
 
Back
Top