Believing in creationism is a sin

[Esquilax]

The signifier is different from the signified. What you call "facts" are just symbols that refer to things, typically things that don't actually exist. Science creates terminology that describes the things that they talk. You cannot go outside and meet a man called "punctuated equillibrium" who introduces himself using that term and reveals that his basic nature is revealed in in these terms, someone created that term to describe natural phenomenon.

That's true, but even if I could meet Mr Punctuated Equilibrium he could also be lying.

What I can really do, however, is research the fossil record and see that not only can we construct a clear evolutionary line for many animals, but also find that those animals occur at the correct time period and in the correct locations. I can also see the DNA evidence that confirms this. And, if I'm really difficult to convince, I can grab a few populations of short lived animals- like, say, fruit flies- and breed them until I can see the evolutionary changes begin to occur in them.

What such tests would one propose for creationism? Because... well, science needs tests. That's important.

People can't know things in them-self, the ding an sich, they know the phenomenological world. Why not let science proceed and just be a little humble about it? Much of it will be overturned in the future anyways, consider the science/philosophy world from 1000 years ago.

But you've got certainty about other things in your life. Why is science the only thing that needs to be humble about all this? Why do the facts need to be humble?

Besides, you're getting dangerously solipsistic to an almost unhelpful degree, there. If we can't be certain about anything, then what's the point of doing anything? Why make judgments at all?