[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul Anything called science that has a pre-estabished objective would leave out some evidence and use only the evidence that supports the objective and that is what Creationism does. Some evolutionists might be guilty of doing that also.

Nice try, but you are missing a critical step in that line of thinking.

The pre-established objective is finding an explanation that provides results. If the explanation leads to a dead end, then a scientist will turn around and find another explanation to see if that works better.

Sorry, but there is no agenda AGAINST the idea of your god or anybody elses god.

The Theory of Evolution is only up for debate because its an explanation that deals with the creation of life. The Theory of Evolution is not up for debate because it does not provide results, or that it is bad science, but because it contradicts people's fearful superstitions.

You seem to be coming out of your shell a little bit and being a little bit more honest with yourself and others. You show your true colors by letting me and others see that you think science has an agenda against a certain practice, particularly against theists. The problem starts with the fact that theists think they are special, in which they do not have to abide by the rules. You see, creationism is an explanation just like evolution, but there is a difference. The creationist explanation leads to a dead end, it provides no new information that was not yet known, there is no supporting evidence, it does not line up with other explanations that work and there are so many other creationist explanations that it is impossible to distinguish between a better and a worse one.

Quite frankly, religion has failed at predicting anything not previously known.

On the other hand you have the Theory of Evolution that helps explain much of Biology. Although Darwin did not have the ability to peer into the nucleus of cells he was STILL able to predict that genes existed (although he did not refer to them as that). Darwinism lead the way as the best interpretation at the time and soon enough it turned into the Theory of Evolution when scientists discovered the underlying mechanisms behind the process of evolution. Evolution can be directly and indirectly observed, the explanation predicted everything that scientists have observed, it lead to the discovery of new phenomena, and it is consist with other preferred explanations.

If the shoe don't fit, you must aquit as a famous lawyer once said. So a smart scientist would not use a shoe that does not fit. But a critic might dig up the shoe and holler "wait just on moment". Thus, it become debatable.

This has already been established in the opening post aswell as what I said above. Science uses as much honesty as possible to explain how reality works.

Scientific explanations are always being critiqued by scientists and are always up for change. I don't know why you think your analogy works for you but whatever. Science realizes there are lots of shoes and wants to make sure to find the one that fits perfectly. A shoe that is uncomfortable is not the right shoe, therefore, the search to find that right shoe continues.

The funny thing about religion is that they think there is only ONE shoe. And although that is obviously not true, they stick to that one shoe based on one of the most idiotic ways of thinking ever created, and that is FAITH.