How Science Became A New Religion

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I am only making the same claim against science that science makes against God. What most scientists seem to do is look at a mountain of evidence and claim it fact. What most people who believe in God do is look at a mountain of evidence and claim it faith.

You see the man of spirit can see something the man of science cannot. Until something is proven as fact than all things are possible. We need not teach past what we know is true. In this way we never give reason to inhibit the truth when we do find it.

Who is wiser the man who must have a fact even if it means making a fact out of an unprovable theory? Or the man of faith who accepts that all things are possible and does not allow his thinking to be inhibited by limiting the possibilities.

I never said that I would not accept known laws of physics as fact. I believe there is purpose in everything. Since we have conflicting viewpoints, neither of which can be proven in a court of law, then I suggest God is innocent until proven guilty.

I see no reason to change this viewpoint until those who need to know more find something that can be verifiable and repeatable, thus passing scientific method. The only method in which any theory should ever be considered fact. Yet we allow non facts to be represented as fact in our children's textbooks.

Should we not tell the truth so that are children may be inspired to find the truth? I am not against science, I am only for the truth.

And the truth is creationism and a young earth remain plausible, with signs that point to it.

So until those who seek the truth find proof of a better truth, there is no reason to let go of my truth. My truth is God loved me enough to tell the truth and preserve the truth, then to print the truth in more languages and in more copies than any other book in history.

At least I know my belief takes faith, I am just asking for science to admit there is a bit of faith that comes with their way of thinking, their religion.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
At least I know my belief takes faith, I am just asking for science to admit there is a bit of faith that comes with their way of thinking, their religion.

I don't see the faith in the quote in my last post. It says maybe there's an undiscovered particle or something. Then it says an alternative might be that something is wrong with gravity theory. Scientists would support anything that explains all the data well enough. They aren't married to the wimp idea.

How is this faith? It's not. The only thing scientists have faith in is that observations of the natural world tell us something about the natural world.

If young Earth Creationism is true, then scientists have misplaced this faith, because the only way it can be true is if God created the Earth 6,000-10,000 years ago to LOOK like it is much older than that. Science can't rule out that possibility. So really the only faith scientists have is that God wouldn't be such a (censored) to do something misleading like that. Dr Hazen explains this well:


Video excerpts:

0:07 I want to say a bit about science and religion

4:16 The universe could have been created by God 10,000 years ago to appear extremely ancient....

But if that's true what is the meaning of observations of the natural world if our senses can lie to us?

Originally posted by swanne

I must admit am now a bit curious as to what was your theory you exposed. Would you like to discuss it over PM?

edit on 8-6-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

Hi Swanne

In the mid-1980s I was living in Hong Kong and I heard a fascinating alternative to the theory of evolution - I mean it is still evolution, but the story explains the process as a system in nature - relying on 2 mechanisms - rotation and differentiation in a 4-step process. It's fabulous. Rather than explaining evolution as the result of ad-hoc events - planetary collisions, meteor strikes and genetic mutations, it explains the beginning and development of life as a simple natural process.

At the time the evidence was thin on the ground. I mean it matched the fossil record, and explained the punctuations in evolution (as per the theory of Punctuated Equilibria) as 'periods of excitation' rather than 'mass extinction events'. It gave the causes of excitation by naming the energy source and the procedure of how it works. It was like looking into the gearbox of evolution - no waffley bits or guesstimations - but rather a simple 1-2-3-4 process. I loved it - still do.

I tried to explain it to other people, but for some reason the theory of evolution does weird things to people - it's like talking politics, it's not to be discussed in public!! I bring it up and people think I'm trying to undermine the very fabric of science. I don't want to argue against Darwin's theory - everyone seems to know everything - it's tiring and goes nowhere. I don't want to argue against religion - I have no interest - your faith is your own, your business. I just think that there is a better explanation to life and I think that because I know of one.

So I gave up talking about it years ago. Lately though, things are changing. One of the refreshing things about the explanation is that it makes predictions (like all good theories should do!!) and those predictions are coming true. I'm putting something together now to help explain it, including evidence and research papers. It's explanatory powers are vast - it explains everything from the structure of the solar system, the craters of the moon, the K-T boundary, to gravity, life, evolution and the structure of DNA - yet it's formula (procedure) is so simple a 5-year old could understand. As Ernest Rutherford said: " “If you can't explain your physics to a barmaid it is probably not very good physics.”

It has the potential to do what Crick and Watson did, they uncovered a complex yet simple structure in nature - the twisted zipper of DNA - that opened up a new world, a greater understanding of life that created new fields of research and inspired generations towards science and search for the secrets of life.

You must think I'm overstating my case. I'm not. I'm understating.

If you're interested I'll send you the explanation when I finish putting it together.

Originally posted by Phage
It's Hawking.

Thanks. I got automatic spelling on my Mac - a nightmare.

Who ever claimed the scientific method is perfect? On the other hand, God is perfect, right? Isn't that what religion (Judeo-Christian religion anyway) teaches?

I don't know, I'm atheist. But I think you comparing science with religion proves to be a point in my favour.

So who protested in those 100 years? Who was rejected, exactly? What alternatives were presented?

Let me present it to you this way: although I am not a walking encyclopedic database (and neither are you obviously), I am fairly confident alternatives were presented during all that time. Which logically implies they were rejected. As stones, animals and plants cannot provide physics alternatives, I'd venture to guess the ones who were rejected were humans, specifically those who were part of the science community. Or are you suggesting that textbooks were so convincing, no one even thought about alternatives? Both suppositions support the possibility that mainstream is either lethargic for centuries, or un-scientific in the sense that it presents assumptions as facts.

Do you expect science to completely examine every bit of every foundation on an ongoing basis?

Er, yeah! We are building on top of that thing, and you're telling me we don't even need to take the time to make sure and check if the infrastructure is stable? What kind of science (from latin "sciencia", knowledge) builds on unchecked assumptions instead of knowledge?

But the angle isn't 37º and apparently Kelvin has not been discarded. Yet.

Yes, I just went back to check, it's 19.47 degrees, I mixed the number with some other projects - I got alot on my mind lately.

So it seems that Rabaud has more work to do before we throw Kelvin's formulas out the window. As it should be. He made the claim, he needs to answer the questions.

No, Phage, that's the point. No one should throw ANYTHING out of the window, until one is 100% sure about something. One should consider BOTH options as being equally probable, until we know better. Science shouldn't have the attitude of favouring one assumption over another, and treat that assumption as undisputed fact. That's what science was supposed to be: impartial, and that's not what's happening. Face it Phage: can you imagine what would happen if suddenly everyone would admit they simply don't know?

Originally posted by swanne
Let me present it to you this way: although I am not a walking encyclopedic database (and neither are you obviously), I am fairly confident alternatives were presented during all that time. Which logically implies they were rejected.

The article Phage found doesn't say that, in fact it mentions a shallow water effect that has been "well-known" to be different than the Kelvin prediction. Apparently nobody rejected this "well-known" shallow water effect, and the authors who did the latest research were hardly rigorous in apparently not considering it adequately.

Even if the authors are onto something, we generally don't feel that Newton was completely wrong even though Einstein came up with models that were more accurate in certain situations. If there's anything to the wake issue it sounds like it would be similar to me, where Rabaud hasn't proven the initial explanation completely incorrect but possibly found some conditions where the model needs to be tweaked somewhat. Or possibly he's made assumptions he shouldn't have made.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The article Phage found doesn't say that, in fact it mentions a shallow water effect that has been "well-known" to be different than the Kelvin prediction.

The article I read stated that

Le sillage aquatique semblait donc un phénomène parfaitement connu et expliqué, si bien qu'il n'a plus été étudié.

In english: "So the aquatic wake seemed to be a perfectly known and explained phenomenon, and because of that it stopped being studied. "

Source (french only): actualites.sympatico.ca...

Even if the authors are onto something, we generally don't feel that Newton was completely wrong even though Einstein came up with models that were more accurate in certain situations.

Hm... Isn't that a longer way and more politically correct way of saying Newton was superseded by Einstein?

And I'd agree in that case. Einstein IS more accurate. But in other cases, such as Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, which are nowadays almost presented as undisputed facts in encyclopedias, I'd tend to disagree.

Wikipedia:

based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.

It soulda have been specified Dark Matter is assumed to exist:

based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe would contain 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter (assuming its existence) and 68.3% of dark energy (assuming its existence).

Why? Because other scientists (which are of course less known from mainstream standards), presented other alternatives, for instance Dragan Hajdukovic and his gravitational dipoles, and yet these alternatives are ignored in this article, although very relevant. This leads alot of physicists to overlook and investigate these possible alternatives.

Originally posted by swanne
Hm... Isn't that a longer way and more politically correct way of saying Newton was superseded by Einstein?

And I'd agree in that case. Einstein IS more accurate. But in other cases, such as Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, which are nowadays almost presented as undisputed facts in encyclopedias, I'd tend to disagree.

GPS won't work without Einstein's tweaks but plenty of things still work fine using Newton's classical math, so whether Newton's math has been superceded by Einstein's or not depends on the specific application you're talking about. When relativistic effects are negligible Newton's math works fine.

The quote that was recently made in this thread from about.com regarding dark matter said there's a "mountain of evidence" for it. A mountain of evidence doesn't equal a fact when the cause hasn't yet been discovered. The about.com quote shows it's NOT considered an "undisputed fact" since it even mentions modified gravitational theory as an alternate possibility, while pointing out the problems with that idea.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
When relativistic effects are negligible Newton's math works fine.

Einstein's are more precise, but Newton's are more easy to remember. But in physics isn't precision more desirable than easiness?

The quote that was recently made in this thread from about.com regarding dark matter said there's a "mountain of evidence" for it. A mountain of evidence doesn't equal a fact when the cause hasn't yet been discovered. The about.com quote shows it's NOT considered an "undisputed fact" since it even mentions modified gravitational theory as an alternate possibility, while pointing out the problems with that idea.

Hm... are you refering to this about.com article? space.about.com...

As someone who is building an experiment to attempt a direct detection of WIMPs I can categorically say that we are not all sold on the idea that WIMPs exist. I have seen such statements made on ATS on a whole bunch of physics subjects where there is a massive assumption with regard to the scientific community, when the OP often has little to no connection with the real scientific community, only that they perceive from the internet.

There are always gaps holes and tweaks that are required to theories to get them to work. Science doesn't have any faith at all, scientists do not just blindly follow one ideal... While some of us might be invested in an idea (and by invested I mean that we applied for funding and got it to do an experiment and not in some kind of cult idea that we all must think one thing)

The issue is that in the case of dark matter, the alternatives require somewhat large perturbations at large distances that do translate well when generalized. If you make a theory that works for one galaxy, it must somehow fit all galaxies in a none contrived way. Large scale objects while having some complexity, cannot be too complex because the higher levels of complexity require a mechanism to form them to. Nature leaves everything to chance.

Have you ever heard of the Keplars Platonic Solid model of the solar system? Back in the 1500s many scientists were obsessed with finding number patterns and ratios, they found many many and applied them to lots of different things, trying to predict the positions of moons, orbital periods etc... While they were onto something, we now know that resonances occur and have some interesting effects, but they were basically trying to find the proof of the existence of god in all things. The Platonic Solid model was wonderful for this, because it actually works.... until more accurate measurements were made and also Uranus was discovered... Science then moved on and largely abandoned the reasoning for the model but continued on to study these resonances.

There are a number of assumptions in the whole WIMP dark matter theory. The biggest one is that if there is a particle such as a WIMP, why must it couple to the weak sector? It might not. There is more evidence that dark matter is a cold large particle than a small hot one... but there are still experiments attempting to search for light dark matter. There are also a multitude of techniques being developed and used, this is to leave nothing to randomness...

Science is, if anything, quite rigorous. If for example an experiment presents evidence for dark matter discovery, it wont be accepted unless it can be repeated and possibly performed with a different detector technology also.

Furthermore, something that I am not sure has been said in this post, but it always comes up is `money' You know that many of these experiments are underfunded? that is that scientists have to work with less money than they want, there is nothing left over in many cases, and scientists do not really work to make money... not in particle physics anyway. The experiment we are building might cost a fair amount but nearly all of the money has been put into the economy to buy equipment and to build detector components. I remember a post saying "the only people interested in dark matter are those who are making money from it." Those people do not exist, no one is making any money from dark matter. If you want to know who is making money? Its people who make Cryocoolers, Silicon and Germanium crystals and photomuliplier tubes... and we make up a tiny fraction of their business.

Science is not a new faith at all nor is it an old one (before anyone tries to go that route) science is just quite well developed at this point in history that it has an idea or theory for almost everything, questioning is good, and it is encouraged. However doing what some people do which is to basically say "Iv not read up on current theory one bit but i think you are wrong because of x y and z... ok prove to me I am wrong" is not scientific method, and given that many posts on ATS exhibit this type behaviour and make massive assumptions that are quite frankly incorrect (OP saying about the spiral patterns... it is not correct, the sun is known not to have a perfectly circular orbit, no stars have perfectly circular orbits... why would we assume that? the planets dont even have circular orbits) to say that science is that ignorant when in the previous post discussing it I tried to discuss galaxy formation and the formation of spiral arm patterns, and the author had not even read or considered the basics of galaxy formation, is exactly the problem...

You ask about Z before you have understood only A to C but not looked at C through to Y...

Isn't there a saying? "Know your enemy?" Well to me, you do not know the theories you are attempting to disprove even at a basic level.

Originally posted by swanne
Einstein's are more precise, but Newton's are more easy to remember. But in physics isn't precision more desirable than easiness?

Even physicists will simplify expressions if the more complex and more accurate expression serves no particular purpose for the problem being solved. In cases like this the dropped terms are said to be "negligible". The complete theory will have all the terms, but when using the theory to solve problems, one can drop terms deemed to be negligible for the stated conditions in the problem.

Hm... are you refering to this about.com article? space.about.com...

Yes.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The world doesn't look to be any age, unless you can see age of the earth with your eyes? Since the idea of Evolution became the model, and the model only works with an old universe and an old Earth, you see an old earth, because you were taught to see it this way.

Evolution has been accepted as fact, although we have no proof that evolution is even possible.

The theory of Evolution - We can imagine that evolution happened so we will assume it did.

The point being when you accept evolution as fact, you begin to look to prove it so. You start accepting flawed results as facts merely to further your own concept.

It is impossible to know the age of the universe. The calculation used to figure the age of the earth relies heavily on assumptions that are not provable.

It is impossible to know the age of the Earth, when science itself can't explain the anomalies that occur with Radiometric Dating. It is also known based on observable science that it is impossible to conclude that the radiation of any object has not been contaminated by outside sources. If the object has been affected by outside sources, which we can demonstrate through scientific method that this not only does occur but is like to occur, then we certainly cannot know the date of anything more than a few thousand years old.

But we continue to use Radiometric Dating and we claim results that are known to be fallible and possible completely invalid to be taught as fact.

By current real science, that is held to real scientific method, a young earth is still far from unproven.
When you look through a rose color lens everything points to a rose color world, that does not make it so.

When you look through the lens of Evolution, everything points to Evolution; this does not make it so.

Why not accept nothing as fact until it is proven as fact, then we can take of the lens of Evolution and let science speak for itself.

If science is not a religion based on faith, then let us remove Evolution from my children's schoolbooks. I would prefer my children learn science, and not be indoctrinated into a way of thinking that limits the lens in which they look at the world. The scientific lens is supposed to be the broadest all encompassing lens, but they are only looking to prove evolution, rather than accept that it could be God.

Proving the world is young, would prove creation. Since by natural the supernatural is opposed to science, science simply refuses to set out to see if it can prove a young earth and disprove evolution. If this were real science shouldn't both sides of the coin receive equal funding and equal merit, until one theory could be proven using the scientific method?

This is the only logical conclusion for anyone who really is interested purely in science apart from the religion of Evolution.

I swear its like some people expect a new scientific revolution every year. Probably because of the perceptions from media that love to hype this stuff. Or because they conflate speculations and hypotheses with settled science. Or to prove to themselves that scientists are also dumb and we dont really know anything and blah blah..

But thats not how science works. Progress in modern science requires huge amounts of hard work and when it comes, it usualy extends or unifies what we already know, not disproves it. An overwhelming majority of scientific knowledge is true and will never be overturned. Chances are your pet alternative theory which conflicts with "mainstream" science is 99.999 % bull#. Thats why we should rightly be very skeptical when someone claims to have one.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by mbkennel

 

No it's not at all like religion. Dark matter theory makes quantitative predictions about properties of motion which result in specific statistical consequences. These properties have been verified in prospective astrophysical observations and compared to results from alternative hypothetical explanations. So far dark matter has passed all the observational tests and fits data better than any other theory. It's missing direct, specific particle physics identification.

There are quite a few flaws with the dark matter theory, that is why no one teaches it as fact. The first link is in simpler language for anyone who wants to see for themselves.

space.about.com...
ned.ipac.caltech.edu...

edit on 9-6-2013 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)

Both of them agree with my characterization. It is still conceivably possible that a superior understanding of interactions between known particles will give the observed results, but it's looking less and less likely as observations have dynamical properties, especially the famous bullet galaxy collision.

From the article quoted: There is a mountain of evidence that dark matter is actually a form of matter in the Universe. But there is still a lot that we don't know..

The unscientific people here who have motivated reasoning to support a preferred mythological explanation take the holes and believe that these holes justify something else entirely wrong or take the uncertainties to mean that everything is uncertain and evidence for everything else is suspect, which it isn't.

"Dark Energy" I think is more likely to turn out to be a dynamical/obsrevational effect of existing physics which isn't fully understood yet.

I really don't understand how this possibly confuses people.

Science uses evidence to create theories to explain observed phenomena. When new evidence arises that cast doubt onto a current theory, then the theory is either updated or discarded to create a new one. Sometimes there may be multiple theories to explain phenomena, each with its own pool of empirical evidence, however over time one will tend to become accepted as evidence is often one sided. This evidence is generally collected through an extremely robust process known as the "scientific method".

On the other hand religions generally claim that they have all the answers to life which is contained in some book, with no empirical evidence behind it, just claims or explanations like "God did it". There are of course, hundreds if not thousands of religions, all very similar essentially, so generally there is very little reason to believe one over the other, thus even if there were a god it would be impossible to show which one is correct.

So in conclusion, science is based on evidence and proof, religion is based on "god did it" and magical books which explain everything.

As for the OP, you have an anecdotal experience with an astronomer which may or may not have actually happened (I'm betting didn't happen like that) and more than likely the fault is with you for talking to an astronomer who is poor at dealing with people, or your attitude with dealing with said astronomer. Find a new one and perhaps adjust your attitude next time. I have asked questions on plenty of science forums and generally get a great response. Generally the only time I see a poor response is when a newbie comes into a discussion forum with a very specific point to prove, then get shot down.

You then found a forum which encouraged discussion on mainstream theories only, this is hardly surprising as it is typical for private forums to limit the discussion in certain ways. ATS did/does this also. Private discussion forums for enthusiasts on the internet do not actually constitute "science". If you found the discussion rules to be too limiting, then you should have found a new forum - as there are plenty out there - many if not most of which do not have those rules. And if you want the reasoning behind the limitations of their discussion, they likely would have gladly given it to you. Since you did not provide this I will do so for you:

I'm going to hazard a wild guess that this post is a criticism of our purpose and rules, possibly this is born out of a misunderstanding of the point of this site. These forums are not for developing new scientific theories, they are for the teaching and discussion of mainstream science. Many of us (myself included) are scientists who speculate daily in our work but still enjoy this place for what it is. The rationale behind this decision is simple; we have had forums in the past (first called theory development, later independent research) where members could come and speculate wildly in an attempt to try and make a new theory but 99.99% of the time they were crackpots. They wouldn't listen to criticism, didn't understand the science they were talking about and wasted hours of members and mentors time alike.

www.physicsforums.com...

It is extremely frustrating trying to be part of a community, when it begins to be overran by idiots from abroad with the discussion being constantly derailed with crackpot ideas. It's what kills communities. That's typically why such rules get put into place.

You then found an article which confirms something we already know. Scientists are not perfect and may protect their own interests. And that scientific fraud is a problem. Yes. That is true. This should have been the only thing you focused on. Perhaps you could focus onto specific fields where this is a problem, name-names, provide very specific examples of this occurring. So the only actual point you have is the last one I mentioned, and it's the only one that's somewhat true. But it still doesn't mean that science can be described as a religion, although you could perhaps describe some specific aspects and areas as being similar.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The world doesn't look to be any age, unless you can see age of the earth with your eyes? Since the idea of Evolution became the model, and the model only works with an old universe and an old Earth.

I can't deny that I'm influenced by my past experiences. However, even without reading any books I can look at features like Sideling Hill and conclude that it exhibits processes that represent a very long time, much longer than 10,000 years. So yes I think this photo shows something about the age of the Earth that we can see by looking at it:

Of course it helps to have some idea what you're looking at so maybe not everyone can look at this picture and see that it represents more than 10,000 years, but it sure looks that way to me, without any radiometric dating.

It is impossible to know the age of the Earth, when science itself can't explain the anomalies that occur with Radiometric Dating. It is also known based on observable science that it is impossible to conclude that the radiation of any object has not been contaminated by outside sources. If the object has been affected by outside sources, which we can demonstrate through scientific method that this not only does occur but is like to occur, then we certainly cannot know the date of anything more than a few thousand years old.

Lose the fixation on radiometric dating. Look at the mid-atlantic ridge and the measured separation of South America from Africa at about 2 centimeters a year, and at evidence they were once connected. Now maybe they haven't always moved at 2 cm per year, but figure out how fast they would have to separate if they were once connected and the Earth is only 10,000 years old, and ask yourself if that answer makes any sense. You don't need radiometric dating to do that.

If science is not a religion based on faith, then let us remove Evolution from my children's schoolbooks. I would prefer my children learn science, and not be indoctrinated into a way of thinking that limits the lens in which they look at the world.

Evolution won't be removed from textbooks (I hope). Your kids don't have to believe it, they are only expected to understand why scientists believe it. But notice the two examples I cited above have nothing to do with evolution. They are merely processes of geology and plate tectonics that requires no particular opinion on evolution. The the age of the Earth can be determined to be much greater than 10000 years without considering either radiometric dating or evolution.

reply to post by sacgamer25

I am only making the same claim against science that science makes against God.

Science makes no claims against God. It does make claims against young earth creationism. And dont try to pretend that we dont know. A few thousand years old world and billions of years old world will look a lot different, it is a huge difference and we would see it. And what we see supports an old Earth. There are controversies and unclear questions in science, this is not one of them.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

I am only making the same claim against science that science makes against God.

Science makes no claims against God. It does make claims against young earth creationism. And dont try to pretend that we dont know. A few thousand years old world and billions of years old world will look a lot different, it is a huge difference and we would see it. And what we see supports an old Earth. There are controversies and unclear questions in science, this is not one of them.

edit on 10/6/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

This is what those in science don't ever understand. You say things that prove how narrow minded science has made you. My mind is open, I have faith, but I would be willing to accept proof if it is presented.

You just said "A few thousand years old world and billions of years old world will look a lot different, it is a huge difference and we would see it." this statement is a lie, but you don't see the lie because you have believed non facts to be facts.

Do you know for certain that the earth would look a lot different if it were more than 6000 years old? Was anyone alive measuring this stuff 6000 years ago? If you weren't here than you don't know.

Should you not say with what we observe in space makes us believe the earth to be 6 billion years old, but we were not there and as of yet we have no way to prove this.

You have stated something as fact that is unproven, this is religion. Science accepts nothing as fact until it can be verified by scientific method. There is no other way that anything can be assumed as a fact until it can be verified using the scientific method.

Science itself is not religion.

If you believe that something is fact that cannot be proven as fact you are using faith.

You say what you see points to Evolution and you take this based on faith on what you see.

I say what I see points to creation but I acknowledge evolution as a possibility.

I do not look through the world through a narrow lens for me all things are possible, the unknown is the unknown, and it is beautiful.

reply to post by sacgamer25

Science itself is not religion.

So, like some of us in this thread, you disagree with the OP.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

Science itself is not religion.

So, like some of us in this thread, you disagree with the OP.

People who believe in the scientific explanation for Evolution, Origins, The big Bang and many other non proven theories do believe in that which has not yet been proven. They must have faith.

Science in itself is based on facts that can be proven using scientific method. But many have turned science into a religion by teaching theory as fact. Children grow up only exposed to the rose color lens of Evolution.

Therefore they begin their scientific discovery looking through the world through the lens of Evolution.

Just like many people don't want religion forced down their thoughts, I prefer not to have scientific theory taught as facts to my children.

School for the developing mind should be about 2 things facts and imagination. Once a mind if fully developed then we should go into philosophy. Currently without having facts we are stuck in more of a philosophical debate than a true science debate.

Currently we are only looking at all data with the preconceived notion that the foundation is fact.

If I look around for a place to build my house, I have many places to choose from.
Science is a rock, which when you use properly will always ensure a proper foundation.

The problem is Evolution is far from a Rock as with Dates that pertain to the age of the earth and the universe. Maybe separately each one of these things represents something that appears to be solid. But one day you may realize you have built your house on pebbles and your house will come crashing down.

Science has built its house on pebbles, because the only true rocks are the ones defined properly using scientific method. If something fails several times than the theory or process is defective. Radiometric Dating is defective, maybe it is the best we have, but to claim anything conclusive when we know it to be a defective dating system, is simply throwing more pebbles under the house.

If you believe in Evolution or Radiometric dating results, than you do so based on faith.
If your foundation is based on faith, than you are following a religion.
Your religion is to believe in theories that are not yet proven.

reply to post by sacgamer25

The problem is Evolution is far from a Rock as with Dates that pertain to the age of the earth and the universe. Maybe separately each one of these things represents something that appears to be solid. But one day you may realize you have built your house on pebbles and your house will come crashing down

I didn't build my house or my world on evolution. Whether or not it's a fact does not affect my life in the least. On the other hand, what would happen to faith if the theory of evolution were to be "proven" true? It affects me not one jot whether or not the big bang theory is correct.

If you believe in Evolution or Radiometric dating results, than you do so based on faith.

It is not a matter of believing in evolution (why do you capitalize it?) or radiometric dating (why do you capitalize it?). It's a matter of having some understanding of both. But I think that the evidence fits the theory of evolution very well. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of critical thinking.

Your religion is to believe in theories that are not yet proven.

There are no proven theories. Science always leaves a door open to be revised if evidence which contradicts a theory appears.