[BikerNYC]

I've always looked at it this way. If someone cannot say that it is possible that future evidence might discredit a holy book, or that new discoveries might cause one to think that the tenents of a religion are false, or that empirical evidence might discredit a philosophical or religious idea, then the book, tenent or idea is not scientific.

Everything in science is open to future revision based upon new evidence. Everything. If a religious theory cannot abide by the same rule, that it might be seen as false in light of new evidence, then it doesn't ask or answer a scientific question.

[RadioAstronomer]

Hmmmm.. I have always agreed with that. Did I come across wrong? I do not believe in evolution. I "know" evolution is the most valid scientific model we have (it is not a belief system like religion). The physical evidence is overwhelming.