The science-based explanation of the origins of the universe is incomplete by admission, and the discoveries that have led to the current theories and hypotheses can be enumerated and tested by others. That's why the theories have developed over time. Why would we take the word of these men for granted? We shouldn't, otherwise we might get locked into following the men instead of the science, and we would not progress in knowledge. If they happen to be wrong, we are not concerned that they might consign us to torment for rejecting their ideas.
Nor do we have to take them for granted. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists the world over, debating and testing these theories and forming new hypotheses of their own, which will also be tested. Some of their work will deliver tangible products, like the cars we drive and the clothes we wear and the computers we type these messages on and the electric grid that powers them. If you do science "wrong" you get poor results. Do it right and you get the expected results. By contrast, the best you can get from religion is vague explanations that require additional explanation after you get the results, and which are easily contested by another religious person because his way works for him and therefore your way cannot possibly work. And since neither of you can test them in any way that can deliver repeatable and quantifiable results, you'll never prove one another right or wrong.
The two do not stand on the same ground in regards to how they can be researched and tested, because religious people have many varying (and in some cases, completely different) ideas of how the universe came into existence, and many of them are willing to come to blows (and even farther) to force their version on everyone else. There is no recognized way of dealing with the differences and inconsistencies among them.
Nor do we have to take them for granted. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists the world over, debating and testing these theories and forming new hypotheses of their own, which will also be tested. Some of their work will deliver tangible products, like the cars we drive and the clothes we wear and the computers we type these messages on and the electric grid that powers them. If you do science "wrong" you get poor results. Do it right and you get the expected results. By contrast, the best you can get from religion is vague explanations that require additional explanation after you get the results, and which are easily contested by another religious person because his way works for him and therefore your way cannot possibly work. And since neither of you can test them in any way that can deliver repeatable and quantifiable results, you'll never prove one another right or wrong.
The two do not stand on the same ground in regards to how they can be researched and tested, because religious people have many varying (and in some cases, completely different) ideas of how the universe came into existence, and many of them are willing to come to blows (and even farther) to force their version on everyone else. There is no recognized way of dealing with the differences and inconsistencies among them.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
