The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Azisien]

It's actually logical inference, it's not "no proof." They were experiments, not just "hey, I betcha meteorites did this!" over two scientists having lunch at Burger King. They measured the energetic and physical impact of a meteorite, and they made a "smasher" to mimic the effects.

Mirror the possible cause, analyze the results, infer. That's different from "taking it on faith."

However, there are many gaps... MANY gaps... that are simply explained by theories such as abiogenesis which have no scientific or empirical basis. Therefore, belief in those theories ARE faith, not empirical or logical or scientific.

Well I think we can agree here. There are mountainous amounts of evidence for parts of evolution, but yes there are gaps. It is a young science, however, and it will grow with time. You're right, in some cases there is a great deal of conjecture and speculation. I think these concepts ARE worth mentioning, even in a science class, but they should be labelled as unknowns. In my science textbooks, they were, so I don't see the problem. I already addressed the inference stuff, so I won't go over that again.

P.S. Dang, Sword, we seem to have incredibly similar academic paths at this point. (I'm also taking a minor in Philosophy)