KnickFan33 wrote:Iron Mantis wrote:KnickFan33 wrote:
Perhaps it's just the the context, but I read it as if you're making out science to be like a religion that people follow without question. That is something I take issue with. If that wasn't what you were going for, then I apologize.
I suppose I'll end it at that.
You clearly do not follow or accept anything blindly, but there are actually many who do.
And any any religion that doesn't let people question is probably a cult or into brainwashing....run.
Whether science encourages questioning or not, A vast majority of people do follow science without questioning it since it is taught in secular institutions of trust; and not everyone aspires to be a science pioneer. Many just want a passing grade in their class, and they accept everything whether they fully understand it or not.
If scientists accept and say that a fish ended up as a human, how can anyone prove or disprove it? Observation, even by scientists, is entirely elusive, and there's no real way to test it. So people accept it as fact and fight it to the death.
If scientists say DNA and a cell originally formed from inanimate chemicals, in and of themselves, same thing. This is also believing in science.
Whether science encourages questioning or not, A vast majority of people do follow science without questioning it since it is taught in secular institutions of trust; and not everyone aspires to be a science pioneer. Many just want a passing grade in their class, and they accept everything whether they fully understand it or not.
If people do not question and follow, that isn't really relevant. The relevance is that questioning is encouraged and allowed. That's how most scientific breakthroughs occur. Compare this to certain (maybe all?) religions where a book/belief is deemed infallible and that's a significant difference.
If scientists accept and say that a fish ended up as a human, how can anyone prove or disprove it? Observation, even by scientists, is entirely elusive, and there's no real way to test it. So people accept it as fact and fight it to the death.
If scientists say DNA and a cell originally formed from inanimate chemicals, in and of themselves, same thing. This is also believing in science.
Can these be wrong? Certainly. But there's plenty of evidence to back them up. DNA, fossil records, etc. We can observe changes in phenotype expression in a number of ways. Are the theories perfect? Definitely not, but at least there's logical evidence to back them up. The same can not be said about intelligent design, which is made on circular logic (My book is true because it says its true).
In the end, who would you rather believe? Someone who shows you proof, but admits they might be wrong? Or someone who claims they're never wrong, but is constantly proven to be wrong, and constantly changing his narrative in an attempt to not seem wrong?
Whether questioning is encouraged or not, the fact is: the vast majority of people DO "believe in" science without challenging. It's a real thing, yes.
Some allow their entire worldview to only be shaped exclusively by scientists and their explanations. If science cannot or does not explain it, they reject the possibility and seek no alternative way to understand or believe. Thus, again, they "believe in" science. I guess that's borderline scientism though.
As far as logic goes, a bacteria growing into every form of life and eventually a human over time is not logical and there's no empirical evidence that this actually happened.
The DNA and cell, information/construction system, springing up in and of itself from inert chemicals is not logical and there's no proof it is possible.
Intelligent design is not tied to any religious texts.
"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life. "
You say, "In the end, who would you rather believe? " There's that magic word again: "believe"