posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:30 PM
In response to the topic question? Of course.
Further justification to rely on science? That's exactly what it's for.
We constantly re-evaluate and test scientific theories in order to ensure the most accurate possible picture of the universe. That's why you end up
with "fringe science"; some ideas are too radical (or have been disproved before conception) that they seem unrealistic. There is no actual
scientific consensus on the nature of the universe; no two scientists will have the same theories. Science, for all its objectivity, is inherently
For example, many ATS users feel that there must be other universes besides our own, including myself. I don't have any evidence, so until I do,
it's a hypothesis; a baby theory, a neat idea.
For religion, on the other hand, there is no such ideological evolution. Outmoded theories do not change because new evidence disproves them. For an
example of this, I'm a creationist, but that doesn't mean I think that the universe was formed in seven days or that all life was created in its
exact and current form; evidence suggests otherwise. A hardline Christian, for an example, would disagree with that assessment, and may even be able
to support evidence suggesting his beliefs to be true.
Science is what you make it. As my English teacher used to say, "Science is the daughter of philosophy and math". It's not an absolute value.
Therefore, technically, it is never actually "wrong", because nobody can ever agree on which theory is correct. There are strong theories, yes, like
Gravity. But then we have theories of the Higgs Boson's ilk.
In short, science is never right or wrong because, much like this post, it never actually answers the question.