• IndiBrony@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    And that’s where it falls apart. Science isn’t a belief system; it’s provable and repeatable.

    Science will look at the evidence and come to the most logical conclusion. Different people may well come to different conclusions. When more evidence comes to light, it will disprove some of those conclusions and we end up closer to the truth. There is no “faith” or “belief” involved.

    Science sees no evidence of a creator, therefore it doesn’t factor one in. The door is left open for people to prove that there is a creator, but so far there has been no such evidence.

    • BmeBenji@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It sounds like you’re describing science and religion like they’re completely separate things, but I don’t see it that way at all. I wouldn’t describe science as a religion, but there’s definitely faith involved in the current dominant scientific theories. Until theory has been tested to exhaustion and there are no more tests to run, the theory lives on as a theory because it hasn’t been disproven (either fully or partially) and there is an assumption that it will not be disproven. That assumption is faith.

      • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        They absolutely are completely separate things. Incompatible even.

        You are confusing the colloquial use of the word theory in english and the definition of the word theory in scientific use. Which is one of the most infuriating things. I imagine you might even know better, but if you didn’t, hopefully you learned something.