I didn't see the bit about how the op was a high schooler. I was a bit grumpy from dealing with older creationists all week, so I apologize for a perfunctory answer.
The problem I have with the essay is that it shows a basic lack of understanding about the theories in question and about how science works. There's a quote from a song I like: "there's nothing here to argue with, it's a process not an ideology." You can argue the facts and conclusions, but the process can't be.
But why not? What is science anyway? Science is the process of forming a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, and modifying the hypothesis if needed based on the results of said test. That's it. We all rely on this process all the time. It's how you know if your stove is hot, you place your hand over the burner and see of you feel heat. If you feel the heat rising you conclude that the stove is hot.
But what else voters me is the false dichotomy that others have pointed out, that it has to be God or evolution/cosmology. No. All the science can be wrong and it would still not mean that god exists. Likewise god could exist and scientific theories as we currently know them could be correct. It's like saying the existence of blue coffee cups is dependent on bathrooms not existing. The two things aren't related at all. It may relate to fundamentalism, which is another matter, but not to god.
If you want to prove god then demonstrate god. If you want to prove a thing exists then show me the thing. If you believe demons and souls exist, show them to me. Let me see them and verify them.
I am a structural engineering student, science is not my field beyond the physics and chemistry I use to make shit stand up. I just happen to be a person who wants to understand how shit works.
The problem I have with the essay is that it shows a basic lack of understanding about the theories in question and about how science works. There's a quote from a song I like: "there's nothing here to argue with, it's a process not an ideology." You can argue the facts and conclusions, but the process can't be.
But why not? What is science anyway? Science is the process of forming a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, and modifying the hypothesis if needed based on the results of said test. That's it. We all rely on this process all the time. It's how you know if your stove is hot, you place your hand over the burner and see of you feel heat. If you feel the heat rising you conclude that the stove is hot.
But what else voters me is the false dichotomy that others have pointed out, that it has to be God or evolution/cosmology. No. All the science can be wrong and it would still not mean that god exists. Likewise god could exist and scientific theories as we currently know them could be correct. It's like saying the existence of blue coffee cups is dependent on bathrooms not existing. The two things aren't related at all. It may relate to fundamentalism, which is another matter, but not to god.
If you want to prove god then demonstrate god. If you want to prove a thing exists then show me the thing. If you believe demons and souls exist, show them to me. Let me see them and verify them.
I am a structural engineering student, science is not my field beyond the physics and chemistry I use to make shit stand up. I just happen to be a person who wants to understand how shit works.
