Religion is taught as dogma.
Science relies on observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses. A very clear distinction.
"Religion is taught as dogma. Science relies on observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses. A very clear distinction."
Well except for the whole Global Warming business.
And teaching of Nazi scientists regarding lesser races.
And phrenology.
And doctors who study "harms" of silcone breast implants, mold, dairy products or whatever the liberal boogeyman of the day is.
Note I am not saying evolution is junk science by any stretch --- just pointing out that scientist are people and they have their dogmas and boogeymen, too.
Ask the president (former president?) of Harvard.
Every hypothesis and theory is an act of faith.
Furthermore, the more science has advanced the more it has validated the Bible. Cosmology is in total disarray since the latest scientific dogma about the expanding universe has been totally destroyed by learning that galaxies are accelrating away from each other, not the reverse as the dogmatic science of our high school textbooks had previously taught us. The founder of modern science and the scientific process to which you allude was a strong believer in Christ and the truths of the Bible. (Sir Isaac Newton)
The next major advance in science was by Einstein who himself believes God must be behind everything.
The greatest mind in quantum electro-dynamics, Feynman, also believed God must be behind physics because he could not believe how certain universal constants came to exist without Him.
It is also no coincidence that science and engineering have flourished in a Christian environment. As Jefferson noted, Christianity allows for the greatest expansion of the mind and science.
"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than any in profane history." -- Sir Isaac Newton, father of modern science
Perhaps you weould like to lecture Sir Isaac about scientific processes and their obviation of Biblical truths?
"It has been my experience that the disbelief in the revelation that God has given...is more prevalent among what I may call the camp followers of science than amongst those to whom science is the business of their lives." -- Dr. Alexander MacAlister, Biologist, Physiologist. Professor of Anatomy at Cambridge University
Not always true. I've also seen it taught as observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses.
Science relies on observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses. A very clear distinction.
It also relies on a lot of speculation and there are uncertainties and controversies that often never get mention in the mainstream media that cloud the line between knowing and speculating. I've watched more than a few shows on the various cable documentary channels that show recreations of dinosaurs and other creatures using impressive computer graphics that give the impression that we know everything about these animals. In reality, the entire reconstruction is based on a few bone fragments that someone could hold in one hand and a whole lot of speculation about not only how the animal looked but how it behaved. In fact, science is built on even more fundamental yet unproven assumptions (e.g., the repeatability of experiments) that can encourage a researcher to ignore evidence that points in a direction that's different from the conventional wisdom on a matter that's considered settled.
In theory, science is about observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses. Fair enough. But in practice, there is a whole lot of speculation, guessing, assumptions, and, well, dogma. And there are plenty of scientists who shift from testing their hypotheses to advocating them and it's unfortunately not uncommon to find scientists who should know better building arguments on logical fallacies because they've shifted from testing their hypotheses to defending their hypotheses in much the same way that they complain the creationists do.
What part of evolution is observable and testable? Since it has "happened" primarily in the past - ???