Skip to main content

View Diary: The Case for Creationism (139 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  your first statements are not correct (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, voodoochild62, AWhitneyBrown

    The essence of science is that is it NOT based on faith.  It is not a belief system.  It is a way of thinking about and describing the world that is based on observable, measurable phenomena.  Where the observations lead, the scientist must follow.  That is science.

    It is not faith-based.  Whether you or I or anyone else "believe" something has no relevance to science.  None.  The world goes on without it, and reality doesn't change to conform to beliefs.

    On the other hand, it appears to me that a faith-based approach is just the opposite:  observed, measurable phenomena can be ignored in order to retain the purity of the belief.  

    So, do I "believe" in science?  Yes, science exists as a way human beings describe, measure, and understand the material phenomena of the world we live in.  To deny its existence as a human endeavour is deeply crazy.  

    To argue scientific points on the basis of belief is equally crazy.  I don't "believe" in evolution.  I understand it as the most valid explanation of life on this planet; valid in this case meaning the most strongly supported in terms of evidence, ie observed, tested, described processes and phenomena.  Whether I "believe" in it or not is a nonsense question.  Do I "believe" that water is wet?  Who cares?  Water IS wet.    Do I "believe" that we inhale oxygen to keep our metabolism fueled?  Who cares?  Our cellular processes require oxygen.  Do I "believe" that the earth orbits around the sun, and revolves on its axis?  Who cares -- si muove.

    Go ahead and disagree.   It doesn't mean you are right, it means you are ignorant.  And the world will go on without you, revolving and orbiting, with wet water and oxygen-requiring life processes.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site