I want to pose this for the public debate.
What is science but tested belief?
All science under the current principles starts with a belief and then that belief is tested. The belief is then disreagrded if the test disproves it. Even if the test doesn't disprove it immediately, we continue testing until we do disprove it.
In other words, we go on believing until we find a test to prove us wrong.
On top of that, when a belief in science is disproved, it is not necessarily disregarded, but instead refined.
Given that, I pose these questions:
Why is belief in the bible and in God and Christ, so strongly resisted by some people in the scientific community?
I mean, what is it more than a belief that is refined when interpretations are disproved?
Certainly, I can agree that when an interpretation is disproven by observation, that clinging to it, as some christians do, is silly, and their belief can be supported simply by taking what they now and returning to the scriptures for a better interpretation and study.
Secondly, why is evolution so heavily clung to without scientific proof?
Maybe I'm lacking in information, but from my understanding of evolutionary theory, it is simply theory and not provable. All examples I've encountered that make attempts to show evolution, also fit this theory:
The world is full of many and varied species of life, some very similar in likeness, and some of these species become extinct.
I don't contend very much with the theory of evolution on a broad scale, because I don't think it has to be contradictory to Christianity. I merely point out these statements because it would seem to me that there are those among the scientific community who argue in favor of what seems like a faith based issue, and then argue against an issue that is also faith based.
Incidentally, to whom I'm referring to in that last staement can be taken either way. Both points of exclusivity seem in contrdiction to me.
