Sure. BTW its not faith based science, its the part of science that mandates the use of faith.Originally Posted by .blank cd
this is a little length but hang in there
Faith is a belief. It can be blind or it can be evidential.
How many of your friends believe in the big bang or evolution? How many of them have actually gone out and done some sort of research to prove it vs relying on what was told to them in class?
Hypotheses and the use of controls are typically results of someones belief that certain things are given and will present a specific type of result.
An example. All theories and hypothesis that are based off of the Big Bang. The big bang cannot be proven. It can be strongly hypothesized through observation, but it has never been observed. Even though this is the case, we have TONs of scientific hypothesis' that are based off of "IF" the Big Bang is how our universe was formed.
Evolution, as a theory of origin, cannot be proven because we don't have complete development data. And we never will. It will remain a theory that people take on faith, based off of incomplete origin records.
The arguments around these types of things always make me laugh we people argue science vs religion
There is this side of science where some people believe everything will be made known in time. we are realizing how much we don't know through the scientific method not how much we do know. For every one thing we think we figure out, we ask one hundred questions. But for some reason, there are a group of people who seem to think it different. Simply not true.
And ironically, all of these exact things can be said for people who claim faith in God.
My personal belief is that the atheistic movement, at some point in history, began to cling onto science as if it were a way to forge your own path without having to give any credit to God. the scientific method is much older than the atheist. That said. science does not rival or argue against God. People argue against God.
Reply With Quote