Science and Faith

[McPuff]

I fight fire with fire. I have learned that the CON$ervative Brotherhood can dish it out but can't take it.

And the big difference in this case is what I'm saying about physics happens to be correct, and the fool who is telling me I need to learn about physics is blowing smoke, so I have a right to mock his condescension.

As usual, liberals think it's perfectly fine to insult and use "uncivil rhetoric" against those they disagree with, but if a Conservative even voices his/her opinion they are demonized.

If anyone "can't take it", it's you. If you think you should have the right to mock someone, don't cry when you are mocked.

Whoa. Slow down. What does being a liberal or conservative have to do with physics?

Scrolling back to see how a discussion on physics ends up being political.

To my knowledge, the rest of the conversation had nothing to do with Conservatism vs liberalism. I was just responding to what edthecynic said.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I wonder what led the person quoted to believe they know the only two possibilities for the beginning of life?

What would be a third explanation? Either it started spontaneously, or something made it happen, I can't think of a third possibility.

It helps to dig the mind of a child.

 

[Foxfyre]

How is it that you have no problem with the theory of evolution as a Christian, Fox, and other Christians do?

That's just the thing. I would guess that a large majority of my friendsj, relatives, and associates spanning the entire country are Christian. And I don't know a single one of them that has a problem with evolution.

Why do you seem to think that most Christians have a problem with it?

 

[AVG-JOE]

How is it that you have no problem with the theory of evolution as a Christian, Fox, and other Christians do?

That's just the thing. I would guess that a large majority of my friendsj, relatives, and associates spanning the entire country are Christian. And I don't know a single one of them that has a problem with evolution.

Why do you seem to think that most Christians have a problem with it?

I did when I was a Christian.

How do you reconcile the age of humanity and the vast proportion of our history that's NOT covered in the 10,000 year span since man was first given The Books?

 

[N4mddissent]

How is it that you have no problem with the theory of evolution as a Christian, Fox, and other Christians do?

That's just the thing. I would guess that a large majority of my friendsj, relatives, and associates spanning the entire country are Christian. And I don't know a single one of them that has a problem with evolution.

Why do you seem to think that most Christians have a problem with it?

2007 Gallup Poll

49% of Americans accept evolution
48% do not accept evolution

Among those who attend religious services weekly, only 24% accept evolution.

If we assume that the 15% or so non-religious are most likely on the accept evolution side, then only 35% or so of religious people accept evolution. This is supported when you look at the 5 most common answers given for not accepting evolution:

1. belief in Jesus
2. belief in God
3. because of my religion
4. not enough evidence
5. belief in the Bible.

So, while I'm glad you've had a good experience meeting reasonable christians, the data would seem to indicate that your experiences are the exception rather than the norm. This is probably why most people have the perception that christians reject evolution- the majority of them do.

Interestingly, politically Independents are most likely to accept evolution (61%) followed by Democrats (57%) then Republicans (30%).

 

[Foxfyre]

How is it that you have no problem with the theory of evolution as a Christian, Fox, and other Christians do?

That's just the thing. I would guess that a large majority of my friendsj, relatives, and associates spanning the entire country are Christian. And I don't know a single one of them that has a problem with evolution.

Why do you seem to think that most Christians have a problem with it?

I did when I was a Christian.

How do you reconcile the age of humanity and the vast proportion of our history that's NOT covered in the 10,000 year span since man was first given The Books?

"The Books" are written by men of faith, not men of science. "The Books" are in part an explanation/perception/understanding/expression of God's relationship with humankind expressed in law, history, prophecy, allegory, parable, metaphor, symbolism, teachings, imagery and poetry. Many, if not most, contained in the Old Testament are written from oral tradition spanning many generations and the language was limited to what they could express from their experience in their language. And a whole lot of it, in my opinion, was never intended to be taken literally by the scribes who penned the words. Such scribes had no information on, much less understanding of Neanderthal man.

The written Hebrew language was almost certainly patterned after the early Phoenician alphabet estimated to have been developed around 1000 BC. The oral tradition however spans millenia prior to that. A lot of territory to cover in the relatively few manuscripts that make up what we Christians call the "Old Testament".

 

[Foxfyre]

How is it that you have no problem with the theory of evolution as a Christian, Fox, and other Christians do?

That's just the thing. I would guess that a large majority of my friendsj, relatives, and associates spanning the entire country are Christian. And I don't know a single one of them that has a problem with evolution.

Why do you seem to think that most Christians have a problem with it?

2007 Gallup Poll

49% of Americans accept evolution
48% do not accept evolution

Among those who attend religious services weekly, only 24% accept evolution.

If we assume that the 15% or so non-religious are most likely on the accept evolution side, then only 35% or so of religious people accept evolution. This is supported when you look at the 5 most common answers given for not accepting evolution:

1. belief in Jesus
2. belief in God
3. because of my religion
4. not enough evidence
5. belief in the Bible.

So, while I'm glad you've had a good experience meeting reasonable christians, the data would seem to indicate that your experiences are the exception rather than the norm. This is probably why most people have the perception that christians reject evolution- the majority of them do.

Interestingly, politically Independents are most likely to accept evolution (61%) followed by Democrats (57%) then Republicans (30%).

I would like to see a national poll that would allow for the more nuanced understandings of religious people, however. If you poll only more fundamentalist evangelical Christians, then yes, you are going to find a higher percentage of people who deny any evolvement of humankind at all and/or a denial of Evolution overall. But you poll the much broader spectrum of Christianity, and I think the results would be much more like what I personally have experienced.

For instance, was the Earth completed in six days and on the seventh God rested? The Bible fundamentalist says yes. Somehow he is able to shut out and deny all the evidence to the contrary just as the Atheist is able to shut out and deny all the evidence pointing to intelligent design. The Bible scholar, however, says sure, but those seven days were not literally seven days but eons in the development of the universe and Earth.

Did God create humankind in its present form? The Bible fundamentalist says yes. Somehow he is able to shut out and deny all the evidence to the contrary. The Bible scholar however says yes, but science points to how God got from point A to point B which would be humans as they currently exist. The Fundamentalist accepts that there was a literal Adam and Eve, mother and father of all human kind. The Bible scholar sees these most likely as symbolic and allegorical.

None of the polls I have ever seen allow for such nuances.

As for Evolution, many people of faith, Christian and not, have problems with components of the theory and will resist making Evolution or science itself a religion that must not ever be questioned or doubted. So do many scientists.

I think most intelligent Christians know that if we puny humans have God all figured out or know exactly how He did anything, He woudn't be much of a God.

I think most intelligent scientists look at science the same way.

 

[N4mddissent]

You stated you don't know a single christian who has a problem with evolution. This poll simply asked whether you accept the theory of evolution. Almost half the country did not accept the theory of evolution.

If you don't like that then look at these:

2010 Gallup poll presented 3 choices

1. God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. (creationism)

2. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. (Theistic evolution)

3. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. (atheistic evolution)

40% of those surveyed agreed with (1). 60% of those who attend church weekly agreed with (1). This largely agrees with a 2004 survey which found similar results.

If 40% of Americans believe in creationism with a young earth and only 46% accept some form of evolution (theistic or atheistic) then it still seems to strongly indicate that a large number of christians reject evolution (not to mention geology). And I would still contend that your experience is unusual. Come to the deep south where I live, and I guarantee you will have a much different experience.

 

[Foxfyre]

You stated you don't know a single christian who has a problem with evolution. This poll simply asked whether you accept the theory of evolution. Almost half the country did not accept the theory of evolution.

If you don't like that then look at these:

2010 Gallup poll presented 3 choices

1. God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. (creationism)

2. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. (Theistic evolution)

3. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. (atheistic evolution)

40% of those surveyed agreed with (1). 60% of those who attend church weekly agreed with (1). This largely agrees with a 2004 survey which found similar results.

If 40% of Americans believe in creationism with a young earth and only 46% accept some form of evolution (theistic or atheistic) then it still seems to strongly indicate that a large number of christians reject evolution (not to mention geology). And I would still contend that your experience is unusual. Come to the deep south where I live, and I guarantee you will have a much different experience.

Again I want to know who they polled. If they polled mostly fundamentalist evangelicals, then the results you've posted are probably close to correct. Such, however, are a fairly small minority among all of Christendom.

If they polled Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Anglicans, United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), most Baptists, most Congregationalists, Quakers, most Lutherans, non denominational, et al, then they wouldn't have found a lot of, if any, "creationists' who deny evolution as you have described them.

The church I attend these days, for instance, has a large population of current and former scientists, engineers, and other such types with Sandia and Los Alamos labs, White Sands, and other similar scientific groups. Most of these folks attend church faithfully every week and are otherwise much involved, but you won't get any of them to say that humans did not evolve from lesser life forms. And I don't think any of them would choose a church that taught significantly different stuff than what they believe.

 

[Sky Dancer]

How is it that you have no problem with the theory of evolution as a Christian, Fox, and other Christians do?

That's just the thing. I would guess that a large majority of my friendsj, relatives, and associates spanning the entire country are Christian. And I don't know a single one of them that has a problem with evolution.

Why do you seem to think that most Christians have a problem with it?

I did not say MOST Christians have a problem with evolution. Some do, I read their posts.

I actually think it's cool when Christians are able to resolve their faith without casting dispersion on scientific theories.

 

[Foxfyre]

How is it that you have no problem with the theory of evolution as a Christian, Fox, and other Christians do?

That's just the thing. I would guess that a large majority of my friendsj, relatives, and associates spanning the entire country are Christian. And I don't know a single one of them that has a problem with evolution.

Why do you seem to think that most Christians have a problem with it?

I did not say MOST Christians have a problem with evolution. Some do, I read their posts.

I actually think it's cool when Christians are able to resolve their faith without casting dispersion on scientific theories.

Well you didn't specify who the 'other Christians' are Sky. Your statement could easily be interpreted that I am the only Christian who has no problem coexisting peacefully with both faith and science. I have a problem with that as well as with the Gallup poll that is continually cited to show how ignorant and backwards a whole lot of us Christians are.

I do accept that it was not your intention to cast aspersions upon Christians with your statement, however.

I wish more people were able to talk about science and faith without casting aspersions on Christians or others of faith.

 

[Sky Dancer]

That's just the thing. I would guess that a large majority of my friendsj, relatives, and associates spanning the entire country are Christian. And I don't know a single one of them that has a problem with evolution.

Why do you seem to think that most Christians have a problem with it?

I did not say MOST Christians have a problem with evolution. Some do, I read their posts.

I actually think it's cool when Christians are able to resolve their faith without casting dispersion on scientific theories.

Well you didn't specify who the 'other Christians' are Sky. Your statement could easily be interpreted that I am the only Christian who has no problem coexisting peacefully with both faith and science. I have a problem with that as well as with the Gallup poll that is continually cited to show how ignorant and backwards a whole lot of us Christians are.

I do accept that it was not your intention to cast aspersions upon Christians with your statement, however.

I wish more people were able to talk about science and faith without casting aspersions on Christians or others of faith.

Gee. I didn't specify who the 'other' Christians are. Sorry. I did NOT say that YOU are the only Christian that can live with faith and science. Nor, did I imply that, although I'm sorry to see you interpreted my statement that way. I merely expressed delight in finding common ground.

I do not think Christians (of any particular specific number) are ignorant and backward.

Thank you for noticing that I am taking care to not cast aspersions on Christians or other people of faith.

I have pointed out that the Dalai Lama has said that if science contradicts, with proof, a Buddhist teaching, then the teaching must change. I consider that a very enlightened view.

 

[Foxfyre]

I did not say MOST Christians have a problem with evolution. Some do, I read their posts.

I actually think it's cool when Christians are able to resolve their faith without casting dispersion on scientific theories.

Well you didn't specify who the 'other Christians' are Sky. Your statement could easily be interpreted that I am the only Christian who has no problem coexisting peacefully with both faith and science. I have a problem with that as well as with the Gallup poll that is continually cited to show how ignorant and backwards a whole lot of us Christians are.

I do accept that it was not your intention to cast aspersions upon Christians with your statement, however.

I wish more people were able to talk about science and faith without casting aspersions on Christians or others of faith.

Gee. I didn't specify who the 'other' Christians are. Sorry. I did NOT say that YOU are the only Christian that can live with faith and science. Nor, did I imply that, although I'm sorry to see you interpreted my statement that way. I merely expressed delight in finding common ground.

I do not think Christians (of any particular specific number) are ignorant and backward.

Thank you for noticing that I am taking care to not cast aspersions on Christians or other people of faith.

I have pointed out that the Dalai Lama has said that if science contradicts, with proof, a Buddhist teaching, then the teaching must change. I consider that a very enlightened view.

But does that not make science into a sort of 'god' or quasi deity to be worshipped and obeyed if science cannot be doubted or questioned? But then I lean toward that school of science for whom 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words and almost non existence in the language.

That is why I say science and faith can coexist quite peacefully side by side so long as neither are presumed to be all that ends all. Neither can be proved by one person to another beyond any possibility of doubt except within very narrow parameters. And both leave open endless possibilities for new revelation and truth.

 

[AVG-JOE]

That's just the thing. I would guess that a large majority of my friendsj, relatives, and associates spanning the entire country are Christian. And I don't know a single one of them that has a problem with evolution.

Why do you seem to think that most Christians have a problem with it?

I did when I was a Christian.

How do you reconcile the age of humanity and the vast proportion of our history that's NOT covered in the 10,000 year span since man was first given The Books?

"The Books" are written by men of faith, not men of science. "The Books" are in part an explanation/perception/understanding/expression of God's relationship with humankind expressed in law, history, prophecy, allegory, parable, metaphor, symbolism, teachings, imagery and poetry. Many, if not most, contained in the Old Testament are written from oral tradition spanning many generations and the language was limited to what they could express from their experience in their language. And a whole lot of it, in my opinion, was never intended to be taken literally by the scribes who penned the words. Such scribes had no information on, much less understanding of Neanderthal man.

The written Hebrew language was almost certainly patterned after the early Phoenician alphabet estimated to have been developed around 1000 BC. The oral tradition however spans millenia prior to that. A lot of territory to cover in the relatively few manuscripts that make up what we Christians call the "Old Testament".

The Old Testament ROCKS! Just being the oldest collection of writings that survive the checkered history of life on earth makes The Old Testament required reading. Excellent insight into the heart of Western Civilization. Probably what bound the Jews across time 'till 1947. Amazing story and documentation of ritual.

I'll admit I've not read it all ( Exodus ) but I dig the passion of The Psalms and Ruth is a book of action. I liked Kings, too.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Well you didn't specify who the 'other Christians' are Sky. Your statement could easily be interpreted that I am the only Christian who has no problem coexisting peacefully with both faith and science. I have a problem with that as well as with the Gallup poll that is continually cited to show how ignorant and backwards a whole lot of us Christians are.

I do accept that it was not your intention to cast aspersions upon Christians with your statement, however.

I wish more people were able to talk about science and faith without casting aspersions on Christians or others of faith.

Gee. I didn't specify who the 'other' Christians are. Sorry. I did NOT say that YOU are the only Christian that can live with faith and science. Nor, did I imply that, although I'm sorry to see you interpreted my statement that way. I merely expressed delight in finding common ground.

I do not think Christians (of any particular specific number) are ignorant and backward.

Thank you for noticing that I am taking care to not cast aspersions on Christians or other people of faith.

I have pointed out that the Dalai Lama has said that if science contradicts, with proof, a Buddhist teaching, then the teaching must change. I consider that a very enlightened view.

But does that not make science into a sort of 'god' or quasi deity to be worshipped and obeyed if science cannot be doubted or questioned? But then I lean toward that school of science for whom 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words and almost non existence in the language.

That is why I say science and faith can coexist quite peacefully side by side so long as neither are presumed to be all that ends all. Neither can be proved by one person to another beyond any possibility of doubt except within very narrow parameters. And both leave open endless possibilities for new revelation and truth.

How is the Dalai Lama's blazing intellect making science into a God? I don't hear him or me suggesting that science cannot be questioned or that science doesn't have limitiations.

I don't follow your school of science for whom the words proof and certainty are non-existent. I follow Buddhist philosophy, which identifies four extreme views to be avoided, eternalism, nihilism, both and neither.

I agree that science and religion can complement each other. I disgree that creationism need be taught in science class.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well you didn't specify who the 'other Christians' are Sky. Your statement could easily be interpreted that I am the only Christian who has no problem coexisting peacefully with both faith and science. I have a problem with that as well as with the Gallup poll that is continually cited to show how ignorant and backwards a whole lot of us Christians are.

I do accept that it was not your intention to cast aspersions upon Christians with your statement, however.

I wish more people were able to talk about science and faith without casting aspersions on Christians or others of faith.

Gee. I didn't specify who the 'other' Christians are. Sorry. I did NOT say that YOU are the only Christian that can live with faith and science. Nor, did I imply that, although I'm sorry to see you interpreted my statement that way. I merely expressed delight in finding common ground.

I do not think Christians (of any particular specific number) are ignorant and backward.

Thank you for noticing that I am taking care to not cast aspersions on Christians or other people of faith.

I have pointed out that the Dalai Lama has said that if science contradicts, with proof, a Buddhist teaching, then the teaching must change. I consider that a very enlightened view.

But does that not make science into a sort of 'god' or quasi deity to be worshipped and obeyed if science cannot be doubted or questioned? But then I lean toward that school of science for whom 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words and almost non existence in the language.

That is why I say science and faith can coexist quite peacefully side by side so long as neither are presumed to be all that ends all. Neither can be proved by one person to another beyond any possibility of doubt except within very narrow parameters. And both leave open endless possibilities for new revelation and truth.

I respect the science that admits that anything not repeatable is not provable and therefore must be taken or not on faith. I respect the faith that guarantees my right to be wrong.

 

[N4mddissent]

You stated you don't know a single christian who has a problem with evolution. This poll simply asked whether you accept the theory of evolution. Almost half the country did not accept the theory of evolution.

If you don't like that then look at these:

2010 Gallup poll presented 3 choices

1. God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. (creationism)

2. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. (Theistic evolution)

3. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. (atheistic evolution)

40% of those surveyed agreed with (1). 60% of those who attend church weekly agreed with (1). This largely agrees with a 2004 survey which found similar results.

If 40% of Americans believe in creationism with a young earth and only 46% accept some form of evolution (theistic or atheistic) then it still seems to strongly indicate that a large number of christians reject evolution (not to mention geology). And I would still contend that your experience is unusual. Come to the deep south where I live, and I guarantee you will have a much different experience.

Again I want to know who they polled. If they polled mostly fundamentalist evangelicals, then the results you've posted are probably close to correct. Such, however, are a fairly small minority among all of Christendom.

If they polled Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Anglicans, United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), most Baptists, most Congregationalists, Quakers, most Lutherans, non denominational, et al, then they wouldn't have found a lot of, if any, "creationists' who deny evolution as you have described them.

The church I attend these days, for instance, has a large population of current and former scientists, engineers, and other such types with Sandia and Los Alamos labs, White Sands, and other similar scientific groups. Most of these folks attend church faithfully every week and are otherwise much involved, but you won't get any of them to say that humans did not evolve from lesser life forms. And I don't think any of them would choose a church that taught significantly different stuff than what they believe.

They polled Americans. It was a statistically significant random portion of the American public. That's how national polls are conducted. They make sure to include a statistically significant diverse population that is representative of the nation. I'm not saying it's true that all christians are anti-evolution. Just a significant number and likely a majority based on the data.

 

[AmericanFirst]

In science, the theory of the conservation of matter and energy states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Buddhists totally agree and extend the principle to mind as well.

"Mind" in Buddhism means awareness of phenomena - either conscious or unconscious - and awareness of phenomena can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed.

Particle physicists emphasize the role of the observer in defining anything. For example, from a certain point of view, light is matter; from another point of view, it is energy. What type of phenomenon light seems to exist as depends on many variables, particularly on the conceptual framework the investigator is using to analyze it. Thus, phenomena do not exist inherently as this or that from their own sides, unrelated to the consciousness that perceives them.

Buddhism asserts the same thing: what things exist as depends on the observer and the conceptual framework with which the personregards them. For example, whether a certain situation exists as a horrible problem or as something solvable depends on the observer, the person involved. If somebody has the conceptual framework, "This is an impossible situation and nothing can be done," then there really is a difficult problem that cannot be solved. However, with the frame of mind that thinks, "This is complicated and complex, but there is a solution if we approach it in a different way," then that person is much more open to try to find a solution. What is a huge problem for one person is not a big deal for another. It depends on the observer, for our problems do not inherently exist as monstrous problems. Thus, science and Buddhism come to the same conclusion: phenomena exist as this or that dependent on the observer.

Of course buddhists follow a cult leader. Right.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You stated you don't know a single christian who has a problem with evolution. This poll simply asked whether you accept the theory of evolution. Almost half the country did not accept the theory of evolution.

If you don't like that then look at these:

2010 Gallup poll presented 3 choices

1. God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. (creationism)

2. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. (Theistic evolution)

3. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. (atheistic evolution)

40% of those surveyed agreed with (1). 60% of those who attend church weekly agreed with (1). This largely agrees with a 2004 survey which found similar results.

If 40% of Americans believe in creationism with a young earth and only 46% accept some form of evolution (theistic or atheistic) then it still seems to strongly indicate that a large number of christians reject evolution (not to mention geology). And I would still contend that your experience is unusual. Come to the deep south where I live, and I guarantee you will have a much different experience.

Again I want to know who they polled. If they polled mostly fundamentalist evangelicals, then the results you've posted are probably close to correct. Such, however, are a fairly small minority among all of Christendom.

If they polled Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Anglicans, United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), most Baptists, most Congregationalists, Quakers, most Lutherans, non denominational, et al, then they wouldn't have found a lot of, if any, "creationists' who deny evolution as you have described them.

The church I attend these days, for instance, has a large population of current and former scientists, engineers, and other such types with Sandia and Los Alamos labs, White Sands, and other similar scientific groups. Most of these folks attend church faithfully every week and are otherwise much involved, but you won't get any of them to say that humans did not evolve from lesser life forms. And I don't think any of them would choose a church that taught significantly different stuff than what they believe.

They polled Americans. It was a statistically significant random portion of the American public. That's how national polls are conducted. They make sure to include a statistically significant diverse population that is representative of the nation. I'm not saying it's true that all christians are anti-evolution. Just a significant number and likely a majority based on the data.

That is how they are supposed to be conducted. I went to Gallup and tried to find out how their poll was conducted and could not find the information. Since I try not to assume things I would love for you to link to how they conducted that poll for the rest of us. Until you do I will just have to assume it was actually a random sampling of church goers after service let out.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gee. I didn't specify who the 'other' Christians are. Sorry. I did NOT say that YOU are the only Christian that can live with faith and science. Nor, did I imply that, although I'm sorry to see you interpreted my statement that way. I merely expressed delight in finding common ground.

I do not think Christians (of any particular specific number) are ignorant and backward.

Thank you for noticing that I am taking care to not cast aspersions on Christians or other people of faith.

I have pointed out that the Dalai Lama has said that if science contradicts, with proof, a Buddhist teaching, then the teaching must change. I consider that a very enlightened view.

But does that not make science into a sort of 'god' or quasi deity to be worshipped and obeyed if science cannot be doubted or questioned? But then I lean toward that school of science for whom 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words and almost non existence in the language.

That is why I say science and faith can coexist quite peacefully side by side so long as neither are presumed to be all that ends all. Neither can be proved by one person to another beyond any possibility of doubt except within very narrow parameters. And both leave open endless possibilities for new revelation and truth.

I respect the science that admits that anything not repeatable is not provable and therefore must be taken or not on faith. I respect the faith that guarantees my right to be wrong.

I respect the science that notes what is repeatable in one circumstance and environment and knows that such limited scope of experience may or may not be the same over the breadth and width of the entire universe. I respect the science that seeks to learn, explore, expand knowledge, and understand the universe and everything in it while appreciating that we now have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to know.

What is faith other than belief in something larger than our own experience?