Many non-scientists often claim to have scientific evidence to support their scientific beliefs. While this claim may be true for the scientists themselves who perform scientific tests and experiments, it is not necessarily true for the non-scientists who do not perform such experiments and tests. So for the non-scientists to claim to have scientific evidence is not necessarily true. What they usually have is faith, faith in the claims of the scientists who do perform those experiments and tests.
More often than not, if non-scientists are presented with scientific evidence they may still not be able to comprehend it, especially if the evidence involves a lot of mathematical equations requiring a mathematical mind, like Einsteins, to comprehend it, so all the non-scientists can do in such circumstances is to have faith that the math is correct and that it is also being applied correctly to the observations.
One example of faith is science is Gravitational Lensing:
To the non-scientists, these celestial light objects are seen as five objects. To the scientists, however, these objects are claimed to be only two. And because of this scientific claim the non-scientists accept these objects as two even though they are seen as five. This is because the non-scientists accept them, not on the basis of what they see, but on the basis of faith in the scientists who claim they are only two.
Creationists are often criticized for not having evidence to support their theological beliefs and exercising faith in biblical claims. But these criticisms often come from non-scientists who themselves have no evidence to support many of their scientific beliefs and who are simply exercising faith in scientific claims. They may say they have evidence, but they really dont. When asked to provide evidence they simply quote science papers from the peer-review bible as if science papers is evidence.
I always thought that science papers was an explanation of the evidence and not the evidence itself. But some people like to quote those papers as if they are evidence. Well if science papers in a peer-review bible can be considered evidence then so can the theological papers in the Holy Bible, and we all can just exercise faith in both papers.
More often than not, if non-scientists are presented with scientific evidence they may still not be able to comprehend it, especially if the evidence involves a lot of mathematical equations requiring a mathematical mind, like Einsteins, to comprehend it, so all the non-scientists can do in such circumstances is to have faith that the math is correct and that it is also being applied correctly to the observations.
One example of faith is science is Gravitational Lensing:
To the non-scientists, these celestial light objects are seen as five objects. To the scientists, however, these objects are claimed to be only two. And because of this scientific claim the non-scientists accept these objects as two even though they are seen as five. This is because the non-scientists accept them, not on the basis of what they see, but on the basis of faith in the scientists who claim they are only two.
Creationists are often criticized for not having evidence to support their theological beliefs and exercising faith in biblical claims. But these criticisms often come from non-scientists who themselves have no evidence to support many of their scientific beliefs and who are simply exercising faith in scientific claims. They may say they have evidence, but they really dont. When asked to provide evidence they simply quote science papers from the peer-review bible as if science papers is evidence.
I always thought that science papers was an explanation of the evidence and not the evidence itself. But some people like to quote those papers as if they are evidence. Well if science papers in a peer-review bible can be considered evidence then so can the theological papers in the Holy Bible, and we all can just exercise faith in both papers.