- Nov 14, 2017
- 9,696
- 5,613
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The point is that interpretations of scientific evidence can be explained and justified. This isn't a matter of a personal aesthetic reaction to a conclusion.
The Creation idea may not require anything physical to exist... but the physical world does exist and typically that is not in doubt.
A spiritual world could exist, but that would not invalidate the physical evidence for evolution.
In addition spiritual explanations for events do not produce hard evidence or testable models so that's a significant disadvantage in demonstrating whether it's true.
Nothing in science is ever 100%, but evolution has been very successful in conforming to the evidence found and as a method for understanding biology and geology.
The ability to split possibilities into two categories doesn't make each equally likely.
That's the belief and I agree that there will probably always be disagreements... but that doesn't mean the justifications are reasonable.
If you accept a Creationist model it is in spite of scientific evidence, it doesn't become scientific evidence simply because it disagrees with scientific theories.
The point is that interpretations of scientific evidence can be explained and justified. This isn't a matter of a personal aesthetic reaction to a conclusion.
We have and do collect information .... the information is subject to interpretation (and those vary) .... ie what does the information mean?
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis
we have collected information and that information is interpreted in various ways.
A fact is something that's indisputable. On the other hand evidence is something that is told by someone. It has to be accepted only on belief.
When the scientific community changes the theory of evolution to the indisputable facts of evolution .... lemme know.
It's disputable and will remain so.
Upvote
0