What's the Deal with Evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

In the eyes of the fundamentalist ─

The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

─ from The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School's Tenets of Creationism​

And the purest form of this is Young Earth Creationism (the YECs) which accepts Bishop Ussher's timeline for the creation of the earth and its critters in 4004 BCE (though small extensions of this are found here and there).

In the good ol' days when I used to post on the late lamented Beliefnet, evolution was simply untrue. Since then, it's become allowable to admit that evolution takes place with kinds. A kind has no clear definition, which is its great virtue, It's sort of like a genus, and sort of like a species, and often enough you can't tell what it's sort of like.

But if the large picture of evolution is correct, that we're all descended from the first self-reproducing cell some 3.5 or more billion years ago, then the earth would not be created c. 4004 BCE and all the earth's critters would not the result of God's special creation as described in Genesis.

As you can see from the quote above, the fundy position does not permit smiles or nods, so no metaphorical readings are allowed lest they build a bridge between fact and faith.

I see a bridge between fact and faith. In my interpretation of my beliefs, the universe is also God's Word. I just realize that they are beliefs and cannot form the basis for explaining the evidence of the universe as we find it. For that, I must rely on the knowledge and methods that we have developed to that end. Science.

 

[F1fan]

In the good ol' days when I used to post on the late lamented Beliefnet, evolution was simply untrue. Since then, it's become allowable to admit that evolution takes place with kinds. A kind has no clear definition, which is its great virtue, It's sort of like a genus, and sort of like a species, and often enough you can't tell what it's sort of like.

Things have changed since the glory days on Beliefnet.

What I find most absurd is how creationists have pushed back the age of the earth and creation to 10,000 years or a bit more. This is to allow time for the diversity of life to speciate (evolve) adequately into the time when civilizations began to settle. But the whole point of a young earth creation is to fit the Ussher timeline from the Bible, which has a very well established date of 4004 BC. If they are going to throw out Ussher's date they might as well throw out a young earth creation because there is no other purpose for it.

 

[Deeje]

The same old, tired, debunked claims that always come up. And just as empty as usual.

And the tired old excuses still come up for "Christians" who seem to want a have a foot in both camps.....how does that work? The Creator is not a Creator at all?......he just threw a single cell in to the pot of soup and waited millions of years for it to make itself into all living things???? You believe that?

Any examples you care to cite?

Definition of the word "theory" as it is understood in an English dictionary....
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something".

Definition of a scientific theory...
"a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. . . Both scientific laws and theories are considered scientific fact. However, theories and laws can be disproven when new evidence emerges."
(from a quick Google search)

Can "facts" change? Or is it supposition that changes?

Evolution does not explain the origin of life. How many million times does that need to be explained to you? All the evidence does support that life evolved from a point after it first emerged.

Now this one really makes me smile....how dare we encroach on another completely different branch of science as if the the origin of the life that has "emerged" is not related to the subject of how it changed over time.
'Wave the that hard question away because we have no idea where life came from, so we'll leave the hard questions for someone else.'

What does it matter how life "evolved" if you have no idea how it originated? The answer to that question changes the whole issue.....origin is everything.

Things have been demonstrated to evolve. How is that not a fact?

Show us evolution in demonstration.....all I see is graphs and illustrations and some really nice videos demonstrating nothing but what they "believe" "might have" happened way back in the dim dark past when no one was around to document any of it....except the Creator and some Christians find that too hard to believe? I am still trying to work that out....

I have never identified my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents either, but I am evidence that they existed. They came from England, Germany, Croatia and Austria. If that is true, then why are there English, German, Croatian and Austrian people still around?

The theory does not depend on common ancestors. It predicts them.

Ah...the art of prediction eh? Now I had to read that again because you said that the theory does not depend on those common ancestors.....but it most certainly does because the theory falls apart without them.....and twisting the truth here doesn't help your argument. Predicts them? You can't be serious.

You know that you have great great.gggggg...great grandparents who were humans because you are in an unbroken line to them.....if you were a whale however, your great, great...gggggg....great grandparents were small furry four legged, land dwellers the size of a dog.....how does science determine this......? Guesswork...that's how. Supposition masquerading as science is rather pathetic IMO.

that does not change the fact that adaptation is evolution.

Adaptation is adaptation...it occurs in one species and does not change it into something else.
Show me evidence of adaptation changing one creature into another through a long series of adaptive changes....?
When Darwin was formulating his theory on the Galapagos Islands....what did he see? Were the finches becoming another species of bird? Or were they all simply new species of finches?...what about the iguanas...or the tortoises.....were they mutating into some other creatures? What he saw was more likely adaptation but NOT evolution.

Gravity is unprovable, but I do not need faith to avoid dropoffs. The theory explains the evidence. It is not merely opinion.

I'm sorry but this is another classic....
You can't prove gravity......I'd say gravity was the easiest thing to prove.....I drop things all the time and they never fly away into the air......do they for you? How much proof do you need? The evidence proves the theory.

There is no evidence for this. Scientists lose credibility when they start making untestable claims that have no evidence.

Scientists lose credibility when they start talking about Intelligent design which is evident in all aspects of creation. But only those with eyes of faith can see it apparently......what a shame.

Have you never heard of those in teaching positions losing their job for having a conscience issue with evolutionary science? You cannot exist in the halls of scientific academia if you don't subscribe to "the theory".

You are free to believe whatever you wish.....it makes no difference to me....but it might make a difference to you one day.....you should try faith in the Creator as one who does not lie....he answers a lot more questions than science ever can....well that is my experience anyway.....

 

[blü 2]

Things have changed since the glory days on Beliefnet.

The question, I guess, is whether the failure in the Dover case 2005, the little concessions with evolution, and the better education of young people, will continue. My own feeling is that the fundamentalist wave has crested in the US, and is in decline, though it certainly hasn't gone away.

What I find most absurd is how creationists have pushed back the age of the earth and creation to 10,000 years or a bit more. This is to allow time for the diversity of life to speciate (evolve) adequately into the time when civilizations began to settle. But the whole point of a young earth creation is to fit the Ussher timeline from the Bible, which has a very well established date of 4004 BC. If they are going to throw out Ussher's date they might as well throw out a young earth creation because there is no other purpose for it.

Someone ─ it may have been the late Stephen Jay Gould ─ said that Ussher's work is misrepresented as superstition, whereas given the knowledge of his day, it was instead an exemplary work of science, a scrupulous weighing of the evidence ─ and the bible was all the evidence there was.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the tired old excuses still come up for "Christians" who seem to want a have a foot in both camps.....how does that work? The Creator is not a Creator at all?......he just threw a single cell in to the pot of soup and waited millions of years for it to make itself into all living things???? You believe that?

Ah yes. How unexpected. Instead of defending your claims as you should. You open with a personal attack. Did I predict that? I sure did.

Definition of the word "theory" as it is understood in an English dictionary....
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something".

Definition of a scientific theory...
"a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. . . Both scientific laws and theories are considered scientific fact. However, theories and laws can be disproven when new evidence emerges."
(from a quick Google search)

Can "facts" change? Or is it supposition that changes?

Did you have to look long to find two that you think upholds your claim? I am not sure why you think that even a colloquial difference matters to the validity of a scientific theory. That seems to remain hidden in your example and your explanation.

Now this one really makes me smile....how dare we encroach on another completely different branch of science as if the the origin of the life that has "emerged" is not related to the subject of how it changed over time.
'Wave the that hard question away because we have no idea where life came from, so we'll leave the hard questions for someone else.'

I am not smiling. I am laughing. You did not ask a question about the origin of life. You conflated the theory of evolution with the origin of life that remains unknown. A common, old and dusty straw man.

What does it matter how life "evolved" if you have no idea how it originated? The answer to that question changes the whole issue.....origin is everything.

For one, it causes you no end of trouble and you struggle against it like a fish out of water. The theory of evolution is not predicated on a particular form of origin for life. Not knowing how life originated has no impact on what we have learned and is explained by the theory. That you are forced to conflate the too is answer enough about what you really know on the subject and the validity of any objection you have to manufacture.

Show us evolution in demonstration.....all I see is graphs and illustrations and some really nice videos demonstrating nothing but what they "believe" "might have" happened way back in the dim dark past when no one was around to document any of it....except the Creator and some Christians find that too hard to believe? I am still trying to work that out....

Another form of the typical denialist claim that has no merit. Take all that science has demonstrated and just declare it is not a demonstration. Do that without basis, but keep repeating it. "There's no place like home" and the ruby slippers will magically work.

One of the demonstrations of evolution is giving us no end of trouble in medicine. Others are impacting our food security. Evolution is a fact that you must deny along with all the demonstrations. A well demonstrated fact.

Ah...the art of prediction eh? Now I had to read that again because you said that the theory does not depend on those common ancestors.....but it most certainly does because the theory falls apart without them.....and twisting the truth here doesn't help your argument. Predicts them? You can't be serious.

Show me how the theory falls apart without them. How does you genealogy fall apart without knowing who your 15X great grandparents are? Does logic ever cross your mind?

You know that you have great great.gggggg...great grandparents who were humans because you are in an unbroken line to them.....if you were a whale however, your great, great...gggggg....great grandparents were small furry four legged, land dwellers the size of a dog.....how does science determine this......? Guesswork...that's how. Supposition masquerading as science is rather pathetic IMO.

Evidence my dear. That is how it is done. Something that is consistently absent from most of what you post.

Adaptation is adaptation...it occurs in one species and does not change it into something else.

Explain it to me, you know so much about it.

Show me evidence of adaptation changing one creature into another through a long series of adaptive changes....?

You are aware of the evidence. It comes up in the debates and discussions that you regular throw in your 2 cents worth. Don't pretend you are unaware of it. It belittles you. There are well-worked fossil lineages that you have no real explanation for except to deny them with no basis or reasoning. Shared genetics is further evidence. Again, you just deny, without reason or explanation. Nothing new.

When Darwin was formulating his theory on the Galapagos Islands....what did he see? Were the finches becoming another species of bird? Or were they all simply new species of finches?...what about the iguanas...or the tortoises.....were they mutating into some other creatures? What he saw was more likely adaptation but NOT evolution.

No one that understands science and is not in denial of it expects the magical straw man that you are asserting here. The evidence was in comparison to extant animals already known and with fossil evidence to name two pieces of evidence. Where's your evidence of this magical Marvel comics transformation?

I'm sorry but this is another classic....
You can't prove gravity......I'd say gravity was the easiest thing to prove.....I drop things all the time and they never fly away into the air......do they for you? How much proof do you need? The evidence proves the theory.

You have no understanding of science, so I am not surprised by your claim here. The theory of gravity is not proven, but the observation that things fall is consist and the theory is the best explanation for that observation. Bait and switch doesn't help you either. Keep flopping. Maybe you will hit water by accident.

Scientists lose credibility when they start talking about Intelligent design which is evident in all aspects of creation. But only those with eyes of faith can see it apparently......what a shame.

Ah, the appeal to invisible evidence that only exists for the eyes of club members. How do I know your club is right. Certainly not on your word that it is. That is the same word given by members of all the clubs.

I do agree that scientists lose credibility when they talk about intelligent design and other pseudosciences. I am glad I read that link posted by @nPeace earlier today. It was very useful. He is correct that ID is pseudoscience.

Have you never heard of those in teaching positions losing their job for having a conscience issue with evolutionary science? You cannot exist in the halls of scientific academia if you don't subscribe to "the theory".

I have heard of them. But they lost their jobs because they were not doing their jobs. The evolutionary science issue was used as a ruse to avoid that reality.

You are free to believe whatever you wish.....it makes no difference to me....but it might make a difference to you one day.....you should try faith in the Creator as one who does not lie....he answers a lot more questions than science ever can....well that is my experience anyway.....

It makes a great deal of difference to you. Clearly. I have faith in the Creator. I use the intelligence He blessed me with to embrace reality rather than deny it and deify a doctrine created by some dudes in NY.

So you are communicating with me using prayer? How many words do you pray a minute?

 

[ChristineM]

The vast majority of Christianity accepts evolution, a small minority don't, i see the reason for this as they interpret Genesis in a specific way, evolution contradicts that way.

 

[Heyo]

And the tired old excuses still come up for "Christians" who seem to want a have a foot in both camps.....how does that work? The Creator is not a Creator at all?......he just threw a single cell in to the pot of soup and waited millions of years for it to make itself into all living things???? You believe that?


Definition of the word "theory" as it is understood in an English dictionary....
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something".

Definition of a scientific theory...
"a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. . . Both scientific laws and theories are considered scientific fact. However, theories and laws can be disproven when new evidence emerges."
(from a quick Google search)

Can "facts" change? Or is it supposition that changes?


Now this one really makes me smile....how dare we encroach on another completely different branch of science as if the the origin of the life that has "emerged" is not related to the subject of how it changed over time.
'Wave the that hard question away because we have no idea where life came from, so we'll leave the hard questions for someone else.'

What does it matter how life "evolved" if you have no idea how it originated? The answer to that question changes the whole issue.....origin is everything.


Show us evolution in demonstration.....all I see is graphs and illustrations and some really nice videos demonstrating nothing but what they "believe" "might have" happened way back in the dim dark past when no one was around to document any of it....except the Creator and some Christians find that too hard to believe? I am still trying to work that out....


Ah...the art of prediction eh? Now I had to read that again because you said that the theory does not depend on those common ancestors.....but it most certainly does because the theory falls apart without them.....and twisting the truth here doesn't help your argument. Predicts them? You can't be serious.

You know that you have great great.gggggg...great grandparents who were humans because you are in an unbroken line to them.....if you were a whale however, your great, great...gggggg....great grandparents were small furry four legged, land dwellers the size of a dog.....how does science determine this......? Guesswork...that's how. Supposition masquerading as science is rather pathetic IMO.


Adaptation is adaptation...it occurs in one species and does not change it into something else.
Show me evidence of adaptation changing one creature into another through a long series of adaptive changes....?
When Darwin was formulating his theory on the Galapagos Islands....what did he see? Were the finches becoming another species of bird? Or were they all simply new species of finches?...what about the iguanas...or the tortoises.....were they mutating into some other creatures? What he saw was more likely adaptation but NOT evolution.


I'm sorry but this is another classic....
You can't prove gravity......I'd say gravity was the easiest thing to prove.....I drop things all the time and they never fly away into the air......do they for you? How much proof do you need? The evidence proves the theory.


Scientists lose credibility when they start talking about Intelligent design which is evident in all aspects of creation. But only those with eyes of faith can see it apparently......what a shame.

Have you never heard of those in teaching positions losing their job for having a conscience issue with evolutionary science? You cannot exist in the halls of scientific academia if you don't subscribe to "the theory".

You are free to believe whatever you wish.....it makes no difference to me....but it might make a difference to you one day.....you should try faith in the Creator as one who does not lie....he answers a lot more questions than science ever can....well that is my experience anyway.....

Can we get back to the topic? (And this goes out to @Dan From Smithville as well who triggered you.)
This is not the 1023rd iteration of "who is right". We all know that you are a "creationist" and Dan and I are "evolutionists". Those are the simple facts in this case and the question from @Rival is not "why is that so" but "why is that important?".
We could fill books with our debates (which could be whittled down to a pamphlet if we cut the repetitions). Why?
There are other important things in your belief system (I think they are important) like pacifism. (And I would be on your side of that debate, not as radical and for different reasons, but in principal.) Why is creationism more important than peace?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1) The definition of a “scientific theory” is the opposite of what the word means in any dictionary. Who did that?

You need to learn how dictionaries work. Words can have multiple meanings in different context and any dictionary will list the main ones.

Note the first (ironically) definition.

PS: if you wish to complain about the word "theory", then you are complaining about ALL OF SCIENCE and not about evolution

2) There is no actual proof for their first premise, that all life “evolved” from a single celled organism that just popped into existence accidentally one day, with the amazing ability to eventually transform itself into creatures the size of a three story building. They want to believe that all life forms were spawned by this single cell, way back when no one was around to document anything. Is that provable science or imagination run amok?

First, science, especially in context of theories, deals in evidence, never in "proof". That's more for mathematics.
Secondly, that species share ancestry is a genetic fact. Evolution theory merely addresses the mechanism by which the process works. If you falsify evolution tomorrow, the genetic fact of common ancestry remains.

PS: if you wish to complain about how the theory has no "proof", then again you are complaining about ALL OF SCIENCE and not just about evolution.

3) Evolution is presented as fact, despite being devoid of any real provable evidence to support the whole premise. When do the musings of science become “facts” that have to be defended with religious fervour? Why do the science buffs care what we believe?

Evolution IS a fact. Species factually and observably change over time.
Gravity is also a fact. Things with mass factually and observable attract eachother.

The THEORY of evolution / gravity, explain the mechanisms of how those facts occur.

4) “Adaptation” is presented as “evolution” but it is a natural ability designed into every living organism to produce new varieties of itself. It never produces a new creature....and science cannot prove that it ever has.

Adaption IS evolution.
To claim otherwise, is to argue a strawman.
And to say that "it never produces a new creature" is also a strawman, for that matter.

5) The whole theory depends on “common ancestors” who are intermediate species between one and another, but these “missing links” are never identified, because none have ever been found....though some have been suggested. They are somewhat ‘mythical’ but the whole theory depends on them.

Bullocks.

Here is just one example (among a ridiculous amount, but just one already makes the point):
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

This one was even found by prediction.
Nothing "mythical" about that.

If you want an example of something "mythical", try adam and eve or the magical physically impossible biblical flood.

6) It takes as much “faith” and “belief” to accept this unprovable theory as it does to believe in an Intelligent Designer, because the “evidence” for evolution is based entirely on acceptance of how “evidence” s interpreted...but how will evidence be interpreted without bias?

First, nice that you admit that ID is a religious idea that requires faith.
Second, again: theories in science are NEVER "proven".
Third: being (willfully) ignorant of the evidence, doesn't make it disappear.

7) Those in the scientific community are pressured to accept this theory as fact, (despite any personal misgivings they may have) unless they want to lose all credibility in the hallowed halls of academia, face ridicule, and also possibly lose their employment.

Yeah. Those in the scientific community are also "pressured" to accept embryology instead of Stork Theory.
And heliocentrism instead of geocentrism. And a spherical earth instead of a flat earth.

Yeah, if as a scientist you put your faith in any of these alternatives, you likely will be out of a job faster then you can say "it's in the bible". And rightfully so.

That will do for starters....

Unsurprisingly, most of these were ill-informed, strawmen and inspired by pure ignorance.

It's all creationists have.

But more importantly, you didn't actually answer the OP.
The OP isn't asking you why you reject evolution.
The OP is asking you why this focus on evolution. Evolution theory is a theory like any other.
As we have seen above, half your "objections" aren't even evolution specific. Every one of them are about science in general. If those are your objections, then you should have objections to literally EVERY scientific theory. But you don't. Instead, you have this uncanny focus on evolution. The OP is asking why that is.


I offered an explanation, which I'm pretty sure is spot on: vanity and narcism.
Your religion requires you to believe that human beings are "special" and the "point of the universe".
Evolution tells you that humans are just another ape. Not special at all.

And that doesn't fit your a priori religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Also, Muslims never really had this YEC type of movement, and only a few of them really focus on evolution as in to prove its wrong. In fact you should know Muslims were propagating evolution in their thinking and writing since the 10th 11th century and very prominently in the 14th century. Some Westerners called evolution the Muhammedan theory.

You should inform yourself:

Creationism by country - Wikipedia

Non-acceptance of evolution in the middle eastern predominantly islamic countries, as among the highest in the world.

Some countries even literally banned the teaching thereof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thor, obviously. One of the movies was on cable last night. Can't stop talking about it.

Yeah, the Thor movies are awesome

 

[Heyo]

You need to learn how dictionaries work. Words can have multiple meanings in different context and any dictionary will list the main ones.

View attachment 52133

Note the first (ironically) definition.

PS: if you wish to complain about the word "theory", then you are complaining about ALL OF SCIENCE and not about evolution



First, science, especially in context of theories, deals in evidence, never in "proof". That's more for mathematics.
Secondly, that species share ancestry is a genetic fact. Evolution theory merely addresses the mechanism by which the process works. If you falsify evolution tomorrow, the genetic fact of common ancestry remains.

PS: if you wish to complain about how the theory has no "proof", then again you are complaining about ALL OF SCIENCE and not just about evolution.



Evolution IS a fact. Species factually and observably change over time.
Gravity is also a fact. Things with mass factually and observable attract eachother.

The THEORY of evolution / gravity, explain the mechanisms of how those facts occur.



Adaption IS evolution.
To claim otherwise, is to argue a strawman.
And to say that "it never produces a new creature" is also a strawman, for that matter.



Bullocks.

Here is just one example (among a ridiculous amount, but just one already makes the point):
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

This one was even found by prediction.
Nothing "mythical" about that.

If you want an example of something "mythical", try adam and eve or the magical physically impossible biblical flood.



First, nice that you admit that ID is a religious idea that requires faith.
Second, again: theories in science are NEVER "proven".
Third: being (willfully) ignorant of the evidence, doesn't make it disappear.




Yeah. Those in the scientific community are also "pressured" to accept embryology instead of Stork Theory.
And heliocentrism instead of geocentrism. And a spherical earth instead of a flat earth.

Yeah, if as a scientist you put your faith in any of these alternatives, you likely will be out of a job faster then you can say "it's in the bible". And rightfully so.



Unsurprisingly, most of these were ill-informed, strawmen and inspired by pure ignorance.

It's all creationists have.

But more importantly, you didn't actually answer the OP.
The OP isn't asking you why you reject evolution.
The OP is asking you why this focus on evolution. Evolution theory is a theory like any other.
As we have seen above, half your "objections" aren't even evolution specific. Every one of them are about science in general. If those are your objections, then you should have objections to literally EVERY scientific theory. But you don't. Instead, you have this uncanny focus on evolution. The OP is asking why that is.


I offered an explanation, which I'm pretty sure is spot on: vanity and narcism.
Your religion requires you to believe that human beings are "special" and the "point of the universe".
Evolution tells you that humans are just another ape. Not special at all.

And that doesn't fit your a priori religious beliefs.

Wrong thread. This is not "Who is right.1023" but "Why is it important to be right about evolution/creation?"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wrong thread. This is not "Who is right.1023" but "Why is it important to be right about evolution/creation?"

I know. I ended with that, but I couldn't just let those 7 points pass.

I have psychological issues with leaving BS unchallenged.

I take full responsability.

 

[Heyo]

I know. I ended with that,

Oops. I'm sorry. I didn't read to the end. (tl;dr)

but I couldn't just let those 7 points pass.

I have psychological issues with leaving BS unchallenged.

That is a good explanation why our side keeps on engaging in the debate.

Wait ...
From their point of view it could be the same explanation.

I take full responsability.

Again, I am sorry for the tl;dr.

 

[Deeje]

There are other important things in your belief system (I think they are important) like pacifism. (And I would be on your side of that debate, not as radical and for different reasons, but in principal.) Why is creationism more important than peace?

Because peace does not come from compromise when the issue means more than being "right".
From my perspective, science has become a substitute for religion in the minds of many.....I would like people to see that science is not as reliable or as factual as it claims to be ....and is not averse to fudging the truth in order to appear to be "right".

I want people to know how important "faith" and "belief" are in supporting what is an unprovable theory.

If its going to be a "religion" verses "science" argument based on facts, then I want people to see that there is little difference between them....each requires faith and belief with little in the way of concrete facts.....one just can't admit it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, I am sorry for the tl;dr.

No, **I** am sorry for the derail.

Accept my apology dammit!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If its going to be a "religion" verses "science" argument based on facts, then I want people to see that there is little difference between them....each requires faith and belief with little in the way of concrete facts.....one just can't admit it.

One can't admit that, because it is blatantly false.

Science is based on independently verifiable evidence.
Religion is based on personal faith.

That's the most important difference between both.

 

[Heyo]

One can't admit that, because it is blatantly false.

I can.

Science is based on independently verifiable evidence.

Science is based on three axioms one has to believe to do science:
1. Reality is real.
2. Reality is orderly.
3. Reality is knowable.
That is pretty little in comparison to religion where you have to believe dozens or hundreds, sometimes contradictory, things but you can't get away from an initial belief system.
The rest is data and deduction.

Religion is based on personal faith.

Which, most of the time, includes a contradiction to axiom 2, the temporary suspension of the laws of nature and/or logic.

That's the most important difference between both.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science is based on three axioms one has to believe to do science:
1. Reality is real.
2. Reality is orderly.
3. Reality is knowable.

I'ld say that one has to make those three basal assumptions even only to get out of bed in the morning, or to cross the streets, or to do anything at all and live to see another day.

Imo, these aren't the exclusive territory of science at all. These are fundamental assumptions required for doing anything in the universe. Even my cat has to make these assumptions when it is trying to catch a mouse.

As I see it, those 3 don't just underpin science. It underpins everything we do.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But why spend so much time on it? It's like those atheists who won't stop talking about God.

Because it makes a mockery of what God actually did. And yes, it makes us nothing but soulless beasts.

 

[Rival]

Because it makes a mockery of what God actually did. And yes, it makes us nothing but soulless beasts.

And you can believe that. But why must so many Christians argue with other folks about it?