The only thing science does to religious speculation and conjecture is eliminate the superstitious component. Genesis was the creation of holy men in an enchanted age intend for spiritual instruction to the common mind of the age.
Science is forced to modify it's theories when new facts are discovered. Religion is too proud to even acknowledge those facts, it lags behind by about 500 years. Ironically the RCC is way ahead of it's Protestant step child in the area of science.
My faith in "science," in general was greatly shaken when I was a senior in the university. In my biology classes in both high school and the university, we were taught that all human cells contain 24 sets of chromosomes. And when I got to my advanced genetics and cell physiology classes, we were taught the same. It was simply a well known fact. But in my senior year, a lone student in a Japanese school began to insist that the human cell he was inspecting only had 23 sets of chromosomes. The professor finally looked for himself, and found he was right. Then they checked a few more samples, and announced to the scientific community that they had discovered that some human cells only contained 23 sets of chromosomes. And only a few months later, it was announced that it had been discovered that all human cells contained 23 sets of chromosomes, instead of the 24 that had been previously taught.
The thing that shook me so completely was that this is a simple matter of counting, and not to that high of a number. Yet someone, sometime, had published as "fact" that they human cell contained 24 sets of chromosomes. And the entire scientific community had simply accepted this as fact. tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of students had counted and recounted until they obtained the number 24, and dutifully recorded that they had counted 24 sets of chromosomes.
If the entire scientific community could be wrong about such a simple matter, which anyone with a microscope could check for himself, what else could they be wrong about?
In my later years, as an applied scientist, working in the field of ecology, I observed MANY cases in which "scientists" had fudged their numbers to get the result they desired to obtain. This has been particularly rampant in the fields of evolution and global warming. Facts that do not fit the accepted template of thought are either glossed over or simply ignored.
In the case of evolution, this has been prejudiced by the rule that it is totally unacceptable to even consider the possibility that there was an intelligent designed that planned it all. This has been mocked as "unscientific," and anyone daring to suggest it is immediately drummed out of scientific circles.
While it is indeed true that, since the concept of God is beyond the realm of science, science cannot simply assume that there is a God. But, for exactly the same reason, neither is it "scientific" to assume that there is no God. That is, since science can neither prove nor disprove the concept of God, it is fully as unscientific to assume that there is no God, as it is to assume that there is one. But the scientific community had a problem with this simple fact, whose logic is inescapable.
Now the absolute necessity of ruling out any possibility of a God, has blinded most "scientists" to many obvious and undenyalbe facts. Among these are the many fossils that are "out of place" in the evolutionary scale.
Among these are the hominoid footprints that occur all over the eastern United States, that are in strata that simply does not fit the evolutionary time table. When I was still in the university i found an issue of the "Journal of Geology" that discussed these fossils. It came to the conclusion that "If man, of man's early ape ancestor, or that ape ancestor's early mamallian ancestor, existed" that far back, "Then the whole science if geology is so wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these footprints..."
This is a prime example of "science" simply dismissing evidence that does not fit its pre-conceived concepts.
So don't preach to me about known facts. 500 years ago it was known fact that the earth was the center of the universe, even though 2000 years ago the Greeks Strabo wrote that the only way to draw a truly accurate map of the world was to draw it on a ball, and the only way to tell whether one city was south or north of another was by examining the altitudes of the stars.
