
Well, science evolves and not all theories of science are necessarily proven. Proven science aligns a lot with faith. They go hand in hand most of the time. YEC doesn’t really make sense but OEC and intelligent design don’t really seem to go against science from what I know of them but you can explain more if you want. I don’t think your puddle vs house of cards examples really compare like you think they do
Specifically, arguments that falls under Young earth creationism, old earth creationism, intelligent design. As opposed to theistic evolution and stuff that basically says that evolution is a tool used by god to create humans for example. To be honest, the theistic evolution people are usually fine and can usually acknowledge physical reality while also maintaining their beliefs in god.
But it’s just annoying if you’re talking to a religious person and they whip out “what are the chances that you drop a bunch of cards and it makes a house of cards” It’s like arguing against puddles by saying “what are the chances that a hole is created to perfectly fit that volume of water???” And you can’t really hold a discussion with those ppl
science and religion can coexist/complement each other. the people who think they can “disprove” science through religion are just weird because there doesn’t seem to be substantial religious evidence to suggest that the current scientific consensus is entirely contradictory to religious beliefs.
like science is humanity’s systematic effort to understand the principles, causes, and processes that shape our past, present, and future reality. from a historical perspective, religion can be viewed as an early framework for explaining natural and existential phenomena as a precursor to modern scientific reasoning, addressing causality and purpose through theological and moral constructs rather than empirical observation.
lol which sciences are “proven” and which are “unproven” The whole point is you work back from the observations and evidence Science is just there to explain observations and make predictions. Successful theories are called theories not because there is uncertainty but because they are frameworks that explains observations and fits with the evidence. Like if you’re going off the rails about how fossil evidence or radioisotopic dating is all fake then what are we supposed to do with you
There are still uncertainties in theories. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily all fake, but we do our best to take what we observe and come to a conclusion from it. We can still be wrong on that conclusion especially since we can never have all possible evidence. And I don’t think you can deny that science is always evolving
Outlawing gay marriage, banning teaching of evolution, forcing people learn abstinence based sexual education, forcing educators to teach the 10 commandments, banning gay/interracial marriage, using theology to write law, banning atheists from taking office (still a real law in the books in many states), banning prostitution, banning alcohol, banning pornography, banning adultery, all of these are things have been pushed back by Christians in office and were at one point the law.
Q. I don’t think people want to outlaw gay marriage, they don’t want religious definitions to be changed by secularists. I don’t think most people care to ban evolution- maybe some eugenics related parts, abstinence is normally better for a society but I don’t think many people are fighting for specifically that, 10 commandments are a part of history, you already said gay marriage, nobody’s trying to ban interracial marriage, “banning atheists from taking office” is part of the beginning of this