Kind of like the philosophy used to interpret actions on Earth to an unseen, undetectable, God.
I have never understood how creationists win by painting science as equivalent to faith. At best, they only create the impression that there are two competing faiths involved. How is that a win?
I'll take a "faith" that has been tested, that has an explained mechanism in DNA, that has massive quantities of evidence to support it, over a faith that points to the empty sky and says, "see, God lives up there".
If science and Christianty are two co-equal faiths, then Christianity loses.
How so?
Oops, that's just it right there - evolution DOESN'T have "massive quantities of evidence to support it." Evolutionists take observable data and interpret it a certain way. They then claim that this interpretation is itself evidence for their philosophical intepretation. In other words, it's all circular. There is nothing about the mechanism of genetics, or anything else in science for that matter, which independently confirms evolution. All we see is evolutionists latching onto observable data, applying their own interpretation to it based upon their theory, and then claiming this to be, in and of itself, evidence to support the theory. It's bogus nonsense.
sigh...
We know anything only by imputation onto our senses, assimilation of those inputs and organization into understandble, intellectually "tactile", information.
We know almost all scientific "proofs" as truth because some other scientists have failed to disprove it and thus call it "true",or at least worthy of remaining an open question. Thus we put FAITH in those scientists, we put FAITH in their processes, we put FAITH in their motivations.
All scientists are political and human. All scientists are subject to political forces more powerful than them. (NAZIism is just one small discrete example, Global Warming another)
Such faith in scientists is profound and incredibily dangerous. You cannot go about proving all theories yourself, thus you are at the mercy of small numbers of scientists, and their biases.
Science and religion do not compete.
Sir Isaac Newton believed in the authenticity of the Bible and created the scientific process. He believed in the Bible because he had first hand knowledge of the Holy Spirit and was educated on the Bible.
The Holy Spirit is better proven to me than any scientific theory. I know it from direct experience. It is more real with more truth than any science.
Science cannot prove love exists either, but we accept that it is true because we either experience it personally or we see its effects on indiviuals. The very same is true for the Holy Spirit. [The Holy Spirit is not the same as love, it is different and even more profound. My Jewish wife, mathemetician, broke down in shuddering tears of joy the moment the Holy Spirit came within her upon asking Christ into her heart. A true epiphany)
Thousands of the worlds most brilliant scientists have also known the Holy Spirit to be true having the most profound effect on their lives. Once proven to them personally they never deny its reality again. Think about the profound nature of that!
More scientists cannot personally testify to the truth of the Holy Spirit than any other scientific theory. (even gravity, since we know so little about it)
Just because science cannot measure it does not make it non-existent. The universe would be non-existent were that so since we cannot measure sub-quantum structures upon which everything is built.
Someday, soon, some a new scientific understanding of the cosmos will appear and cause a revolution in the way we think about current science, making current theories mere small approximations limited by the infinitesimally minute imaginations of grunting little beings with a mere few pounds of putty like blobs of neurons which are used more to invent creative humping scenarios with other blobs of post-primordial goo.
We do not even know what we don't know. yet still some would place their faith in these barely existent lumps of goo, alive for only atto seconds relativey speaking.
These infinitesimally tiny volumes of entropy burps have somehow acquired for themselves some timeless truths about the nature of the cosmos? yeah, right...only if God gave them could it be so.
The primary product of science is untruth. When we can't call it untrue we keep working at it until we can.
I believe we do not even understand what God is, except that "He" represents a grand truth about all nature for which we do not have the brain power to begin to comprehend. That nature exists is true, because we can point a question at it. That we do not understand it is also true.
Yet because of our vast accumulation of scientific truths we can go ahead and rule out the existence of God?? really??
LOL.
Lets face it, men, scientists, are stupid. Most men spend almost all of their brainpower trying to maximize the quality or quantity of the 4 F's; Feeding, F__ck_ng, ego inFlating and Faith. In that order...perhaps
While there is definitely a spiritual motivator for scientists to pursue the truth of nature it can sure be subordinated to the 3F's at any given time.
I sure wouldn't put my faith in any animal so stupid and so easily corrupted. But go ahead and place your faith in scientists, they like it, it inFlates their egos, keeps them Fed, and if you bend over....
;^)