"Science’s only dogma is the process"
You have nothing to do with science, irrelevent. - Your dogma is naturalism, which is disproven by all observation (that is science, in case you didn't know), and propaganda, which is a form of artistic expression I guess.
"When the process produces explanations that contradict you religious, non-scientific dogma..."
Imaginary scenario, no dogma, and to date, no contradiction. Nice try though, more artistic expression? - Having it both ways is your specialty, and naturalism is deeply dishonest. Own it with pride!
Corr:
they HADEN’T degenerated as far as we have...
once again you type too fast and try to tell me what I am or what I think . . . not real conducive to conversation or respect of your opinion.
Tell me, what do you think would happen if some scientific evidence shows that natural selection is but a small part of some other larger explanation for the momentum of evolution? Is there room for science to examine the claim and run it through a neutral process to determine the validity of the claim?
What would happen when evidence is discovered that solidifies the claim that the first 5 books of the old testament were definitely written by several different authors, hundreds of years after the stories supposedly happened and that the stories are historically inaccurate and most likely never happened. Is there room in religious belief to process the new evidence and still leave religious belief intact?
see I posed a question, give it a try . . .