Originally Posted by DBT
I seem to remember you making remarks along the lines of 'science is based on faith' which implies that science has an unsound foundation.

May I suggest you revisit my posts about which you write and reread it/them?

My position has always been: The consensus among christians and evolutionists is that science is not based on faith. Despite this widespread acceptance, human evolutionists depart from this in their final conclusion. That’s not to say science isn’t involved. They just choose to abandon the purist form of the scientific method and surreptitiously insert subjective results. By doing so, they depart the practice of true science and enter the realm of philosophy and/or religion. The irony being: True science is based on being proven and denounces faith-based jumps to conclusion, regardless of size.

Subjectivity may be required in certain aspects of science, but using it to draw a final conclusion disputed inside its own secular practice not science. It’s as if the largely-touted open mind of science is traded for that of a religious zealot. A true scientific mind would say human evolution is probable, but not definite.

From that point, it turns into the quagmire of slander and subjectivity akin to a Jerry Springer show. Instead of being able to prove the point in the purist scientific form, deflection, entrapment and the “cherry-picking” of evidence are used to discredit anyone or anything not in full agreement.



“When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
- Socrates