How is one orgins story considered better than another

[Esquilax]

Drich's position is also self refuting if true: let's just take it as a given that if you can't directly replicate the experiments that lead to a given conclusion yourself, you have faith in it. Therefore, there are certain people who don't have faith in those conclusions, given that they performed them themselves. Those people know the conclusions are true. So, how do we differentiate between knowledge and faith? Well, those people who know can demonstrate how they came to those conclusions... in books... so that... oh. I think we've just described how science classrooms work.

Can the religious demonstrate how they came to their conclusions about origins? No, they cannot, or they would have done so by now. What this means is that we have science, which doesn't rely on faith at its foundations, and religion, which does. In short, there's something factual to science, but nothing but faith in religion.

The point is that someone out there can demonstrate the truth of science. That's why it's taught in classrooms; we may not all have done the research for ourselves, but we don't have to, owing to the long history of honesty and demonstrated efficacy within the scientific community. The truth of science can be demonstrated, while the truth of religion can only be endlessly, and baselessly, asserted. That is the difference, and it's why the label of faith does not apply.