Let's be honest

[The Grand Nudger]

A demonstrably false claim.  They do compete, in every conceivable set of propositions.  In any conflict, the scientific thing to do would be to choose the scientific explanation.  People who strongly believe think that it's the wrong thing to do, many are so deluded they believe that pixies really are a better explanation for dew than condensation.  Still the scientific thing to do.

If a person has theistic beliefs that wholly prevent them from doing the scientific thing or accepting a scientific conclusion..then no matter how many of other people's superstitions they're willing to disregard - there's clearly a line.  Biology is popular.  Honestly, I've always thought that was a weird one.  As though, if a god "made us", it somehow had some authoritative say over us...or this effort made us special.  It seems to me that arguing along those lines does serious damage to the credibility of the beliefs, and if it succeeds, would only lead to something even more objectionable to the likely target audience.

I disagree that it's a false claim because it's how the choice is framed and the differing levels of explanation.  Suppose I showed you a picture of a Model T and said the choices to explain it's existence are the laws of internal combustion/mechanical engineering or Henry Ford, please choose.  Or why is the water boiling?  You describe heat transference, excitement of atoms, etc.  I answer that because I'm making pasta.  They don't conflict, they are differing levels of explanation and are complimentary.

Easy questions.  Ford isn't even a factual explanation among the set of human innovators associated with ice.  Water doesn't boil because you're trying to make pasta.

But why did you ask, do these things seem ambiguous to you? Do you think ice works because henry ford existed or water boils because you want noodles....? Are these additional things, along with biology, that you draw the line on?