"..There is no shame for a scientist to admit that his knowledge is not complete, or that the existing theory can't explain all facts.."I absolutely agree. But it is usually the exception rather than the rule. Creationists have been tagged as superstitious idiots, ignorant of scientific facts. My beef with the Evo's revolves more around their absolute "refusal" to admit that #1, they don't have any concrete proof of macro evolution, and #2 that the creation theory could be just as much of a possibility.
From an archeaological standpoint, the Bible has been shown to be accurate time and again, rarely is it questioned from a historical context. Yet science, by its very nature, cannot accept something as fact unless it can be proven true (which is where the beef with the Evo's comes in)
Science attempts to answer a question using all available data and probabilities. Faith doesn't necessarily require that I know the answer....just that I believe it is correct.
To summarize the points of contention, as they are discussed on Creation/Evolution threads here: two separate points are discussed, and some people insist on very sharp distinction, that we should not mix them together.
1. Origin of life and ultimately origin of the Universe: creation by G-d versus natural (no G-d involved). This is a clearly argument between believers and non-believers.
2. Once the life exist, the evolution of it. A number of believers insist that there is no contradiction between their faith in G-d creating the beginning of life, and their acceptance of the science of life developing: Evolution. So this argument is between Evolutionists (including believers and non-believers) versus creationists who don't accept evolution.
From an archaeological standpoint, the Bible has been shown to be accurate time and again, rarely is it questioned from a historical context.
Many events in Bible looks like did happen some time in history. You don't need to be a believer to have a high regard to Bible as a historical document.
Yet science, by its very nature, cannot accept something as fact unless it can be proven true (which is where the beef with the Evo's comes in) .
Science attempts to answer a question using all available data and probabilities. Faith doesn't necessarily require that I know the answer....just that I believe it is correct.
Yes. I absolutely agree. We differ in approach. I have a deep respect to believers and their faith. But I use science to explain the universe. I don't think science needs to revert to concept of G-d every time when it encounters an unexplainable. Honest "I don't know" is quite acceptable to me. There are countless examples of things that were absolutely unexplainable at previous levels of knowledge, had a "divine" explanation at that time, and received a scientific explanation later on.