Lexinom, I think that’s a rational comment. I agree with your logic. The problem is, they claim that science proves their theory. If you only believe their interpretation, perhaps it comes close. The reality is, there other interpretations.
They use “science” as a club to beat non-believers over the head with. That’s why I reference their belief system as the religion of science. It requires faith to buy in. Therefore, it’s not confined to science.
If I don’t address this as the religion of science, they can simply continue to use the word science as if they own it. They don’t.
Both sides own it.
Is it the religion of naturalism? Do they claim naturalism provides the proof and hit everyone over the head with it? Not really.
I try to place the focus on the problem.
And you know what, that might not be right.
I don’t accuse every scientist of being a member of the religion of science, but when it comes to the origin of the human species and their belief system, I think it is the religion of science.
Not trying to be argumentative. Once again, I think your comments made sense too.
Every new fact that comes to light - even something as fundamental as the discovery of Noah's Ark - will be interpreted in such a way that it reinforces their theory.
It is, properly speaking, a pseudo-science with heavy bleed over into philosophy, bearing many of the the marks of a religion as you astutely observe. Its perceived veracity rests heavily on the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad populum: "No true scientist rejects evolution", the smug implication being that one must accept (on faith) the circular arguments and twisted interpretation of fact that enforces the historical science (i.e. not measurable, observable, or repeatable in controlled conditions) in order to perform regular observational science. That distinction between historical science (origins) and observational science is critical - and apparently not widely understood.