Science and Religion

Why is it that so many theists take the stance that because evolution can't, at this time, prove without doubt that it is an irrefutable fact, it becomes false. I disagree with that horribly hypocritical standpoint. These are the people who claim absolute truth based on nothing more than faith and pattern recognition where there are no patterns.

Evolution, or any science for that matter, does not need to verify itself beyond uncertainty. Unrevisable "truth" is the realm of the theist. Science is human's best effort to gain natural understanding. A scientist that believes what they know about science is absolute truth has missed the point. Science is a journey, not a destination.

My syntax professor admitted to the class last semester that he believed very little of what he was teaching us about current syntactic theory. This seriously blew away the girl I sat next to. She actually changed her major from Linguistics for that reason. She couldn't deal with the idea that science is not a realm of true and false (I got a very theistic vibe from her).

I love science. In some ways, I wish I was suited for a career in research science. I think that a life spent approaching understanding is the most valuable thing a person can do. But, I'm a writer. But a writer that will maintain a lifelong love affair with science.

I got off my original aim a bit (what's new?), but what I'm basically trying to say is that the black and white mentality of theism cannot and should not be applied to science. There's a circular principle at work here: the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth.

It's looking more like I'm going to have to start a new blog to keep these kinds of posts off this one. I just need a name for it. Once I think of a witty name, I can direct all my increasingly ardent atheistic posts over there. Then Generic Title can return to posting about guys I see peeing out the pant leg of their shorts.