Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

I've sometimes felt this, too.  I think much of science is narrative-based; accounts of how animals "could have" or "must have" evolved this or that trait, for example, are often based on a speculative understanding of how members of a species might have interacted with their environment.  They are then taken as a story of "how it happened," and the "might have" gets kind of brushed under the rug.

However, science at least has the advantage of being malleable, something religion can't be.  That's because the foundation of religion is based on the deification or near-deification of its founders, whose words are therefore set in stone.  As a catholic, for example, you must see that much of the Bible is tribespeople BS, and it will take quite a lot of intellectual tap-dancing to reconcile those ideas with that of an all-powerful God.

Scientists are fine with saying, "Newton had X wrong," or "Einstein failed to anticipate the true implications of Y."  But I don't see how you really have that option.  Are you willing to stand up and say that the Bible is imperfect, and that much of it is incorrect and/or fabricated?

It is like the film Clue:
https://youtu.be/SRd55I46th8

Do not forget the rest of my quote:

Generally the new fanciful explanation subsumes the old rather than refutes it or the old fanciful explanation is considered a special case and not refuted by the new, in such a manner as to be consider a shifting of the goal posts...

Scientists are very loath to say a previous theory is wrong and not as malleable as you would think. I am sure you may read that most theories are not accepted within a 20 year period of being posited, especially if that theory seeks to overturn a theory which has served as the bedrock of much of our understanding. In fact the correspondence principle holds that, " that a new theory should reproduce the results of older well-established theories (which become limiting cases) in those domains where the old theories work." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle). I am also sure you may read how people who have posited controversial theories have had their careers ruined even though they were actually right. Do not forget scientists are people too.

I have no problem admitting the bible is imperfect. Again I am not an evangelical, protestant, or bible based christian; so I do not subscribe to sola scriptura. The bible was made for a certain purpose (which is not literal interpretation) and generally those groups do not use it for what it was intended for. With that said the spiritual, allegorical, moral, and anagogical sense of the text is held to be true even if the specific literal details are not held to be true and perfect. I have to say I get a kick out of people criticizing the church for "shifting the goal posts" and for "not being malleable". When the former implies the negation of the latter. Now in order to build anything the foundation may not be shifting. I think we can all agree on this in regards to religion and to science.