Sorry about the sarcasm, Oortcloud. Thanks for the material you've presented; I will look into it.

If it could ever be said that I am closed-minded, it's only because I'm exhausted with chasing alleged truth (religious or secular; take your pick) and packing my head full of so-called 'facts and evidence,' trying to come to a genuine conclusion and never really being able to.

It all comes down to an eternal academic contest whereby a large cross-section of our world's population earns a very good living studying, teaching, selling books and traveling the lecture circuit. The very fact that there is so much conflict and ceaseless disagreement about things like evolution (and a thousand oth...

Sorry about the sarcasm, Oortcloud. Thanks for the material you've presented; I will look into it.

If it could ever be said that I am closed-minded, it's only because I'm exhausted with chasing alleged truth (religious or secular; take your pick) and packing my head full of so-called 'facts and evidence,' trying to come to a genuine conclusion and never really being able to.

It all comes down to an eternal academic contest whereby a large cross-section of our world's population earns a very good living studying, teaching, selling books and traveling the lecture circuit. The very fact that there is so much conflict and ceaseless disagreement about things like evolution (and a thousand other things) makes this possible.

I think I'll write a book about that.

As the saying goes, "For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." One thing I've learned over time is that anything can be argued to persuasion in the absence of opposing "evidence," and where there is ample "evidence" to support the one side there is an equal mountain of evidence to be buried under that contradicts it and supports the opposing view.

We all like to think we're reasonable people and we've arrived at our conclusions with reason and integrity. But unfortunately at the end of the day we're all in the same position of either just finally accepting what seems the most persuasive argument presented (depending on who we chose to listen to the most and how much we have invested in a certain belief), or throwing up our hands and admitting to skepticism. I will admit to being a skeptic.

By the way, I don't believe everything poofed into existence in 6 days, either. My bottom line is the most honest thing I could say: I don't KNOW. And neither does anyone else, because weren't there. We can read and study other people's beliefs until we drop dead of old age, but when the dust settles it's still just belief. And we need to believe our beliefs are based on something incontrovertibly persuasive.

Oh, no, actually I was referring to 'relative' truth, you know, the sort of truth that might or might not be truth, depending on how you look at it. ...Oops! Sorry, that pesky dictionary... "Truth: In accordance with fact or reality; real or actual; accurate or exact; a point conceded in argument or discussion."

The sun either rises and sets or it doesn't. The earth is flat or it's not. Water turns to ice or it doesn't. A rock falls to the ground when unsupported or it doesn't. Copernicus was persecuted by the Church for a good reason or they were all just wasting their time. What was all that about, anyway?

"Absolute truth"? No such thing. Round earth, flat earth, spherical or elliptica...

Oh, no, actually I was referring to 'relative' truth, you know, the sort of truth that might or might not be truth, depending on how you look at it. ...Oops! Sorry, that pesky dictionary... "Truth: In accordance with fact or reality; real or actual; accurate or exact; a point conceded in argument or discussion."

The sun either rises and sets or it doesn't. The earth is flat or it's not. Water turns to ice or it doesn't. A rock falls to the ground when unsupported or it doesn't. Copernicus was persecuted by the Church for a good reason or they were all just wasting their time. What was all that about, anyway?

"Absolute truth"? No such thing. Round earth, flat earth, spherical or elliptical orbits, E=MC2, who cares, none of that stuff matters (unless of course you're trying to build a space shuttle or convert nuclear energy to electricity).

Oh, what the hell, why don't we just strike the word "truth" from the dictionary? If we cannot say that anything is or is not a reality, or that anything did or did not actually occur (i.e. that it's "true") then surely it must be all about everyone's relative belief and my own imagination. Take your pick, whatever you choose to believe and build a world around.

If there is no such thing as "truth," if everything is just in our imagination, then what really matters is power and control. Whoever has the most power and control gets to have it their way, because there's no such thing as truth (certainly not "absolute" truth). It's all about the biggest and the strongest -- survival of the fittest! No, wait, that's a scientific truth claim... Huh? What's that you say? Observation? Empirical evidence? Here we go again.

*sigh* Whether it's science or religion, everybody wants to use this word "truth" and everybody wants to insist that what they believe is truth, which is why they believe it. Unless of course you don't believe in truth at all. In which case you believe (unless you don't) that the truth is that truth doesn't exist.

If it could ever be said that I am closed-minded, it's only because I'm exhausted with chasing alleged truth

I understand what you are saying. Politics is especially tiring to me because finding truth is very difficult. People are biased one way or another with varying degrees in many things that are important to them so it is very difficult to determine how much of something is truth and how much is spin.

However I find the argument between science and religion a little less daunting in determining truth. People of religion do have a vested interest in maintaining their belief as is. An eternal god with a plan of salvation loses integrity if the story and message behind him...

If it could ever be said that I am closed-minded, it's only because I'm exhausted with chasing alleged truth

I understand what you are saying. Politics is especially tiring to me because finding truth is very difficult. People are biased one way or another with varying degrees in many things that are important to them so it is very difficult to determine how much of something is truth and how much is spin.

However I find the argument between science and religion a little less daunting in determining truth. People of religion do have a vested interest in maintaining their belief as is. An eternal god with a plan of salvation loses integrity if the story and message behind him is found to be inaccurate or always changing because of the growth of human understanding. As such believers will go to great lengths to deny anything contrary to their beliefs.

Science, on the other hand, thrives on challenge. Even when something is proven wrong our overall understanding of our universe improves. Anyone can challenge accepted knowledges because if their work is accurate is will be shown when other scientists challenge and reproduce it. If someone is wrong or deceitful it will eventually be discovered. Failures in science are still beneficial as well because we learn how things don't work.

In a nutshell religion tends to try and force what they observe into what they believe while science tries to understand based on what it knows. I know that the belief/non belief of evolution is not strictly religious subject - but it does boil down to that a majority of time.

Most unacceptance of evolution comes about from gross ignorance and/or indoctrination by religion that misinforms people about it.

People of religion do have a vested interest in maintaining their
belief as is... believers will go to great lengths to deny anything contrary to their
beliefs.

Amen. So often it's down to "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." I don't have respect or appreciation for people who refuse to think. I think if you're going to hold to a belief then you should have a solid good REASON to believe, and "Because the Bible says it [according to what I've been taught]..." doesn't cut it.

Mind you, I'm 45, I wasn't born last week, and I was raised as a Christian in the Christian community, so I do NOT speak as one who has no experience with it. Rather, I got smacked so man...

People of religion do have a vested interest in maintaining their
belief as is... believers will go to great lengths to deny anything contrary to their
beliefs.

Amen. So often it's down to "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." I don't have respect or appreciation for people who refuse to think. I think if you're going to hold to a belief then you should have a solid good REASON to believe, and "Because the Bible says it [according to what I've been taught]..." doesn't cut it.

Mind you, I'm 45, I wasn't born last week, and I was raised as a Christian in the Christian community, so I do NOT speak as one who has no experience with it. Rather, I got smacked so many times for using my own brain that I finally got fed up with it. I remember once seeing a sign outside a Christian church that said, "A free thinker is Satan's slave." Can you believe that? Now THAT is frightening.

Science...thrives on challenge. ...Anyone can challenge...If someone is wrong or deceitful it will...be discovered.
Failures in science are still beneficial...because we learn how
things don't work. ...science tries
to understand based on what it knows.

Perhaps in the case of "pure science," if it's honest. However, so much of science today is bought and paid for and it's very difficult to discern what is "truth" as discovered by unbiased scientific inquiry and what is corporate and political spin. It's gotten to the point where the average citizen is in a fog with it.

So again we're dragged into independent study and "fact" chasing (which is time-consuming and exhausting) if we want to feel content that we've come to an informed conclusion; otherwise we have to buy what's being sold.

Where evolution is concerned, "this happened hundreds of billions of years ago..." must necessarily be conjecture. It may be based on observation of empirical data available to us today, but it's still extrapolation. No one really knows. But few are honest enoug

Where evolution is concerned, "this happened hundreds of billions of years ago..." must necessarily be conjecture.

I do agree with this. We do not have direct evidence (video of dinosaurs, eyewitness accounts, etc) so we scientists do have to guess - but those guesses are not simply pulled out their butt and then accepted as fact simply because they sound good. There is enough supportive data to support their idea. You can also make predictions based on an idea and find out that they hold up.

As an example of evolutionary prediction, you would expect to find more primitive creatures deeper in the strata and more modern versions at the top. This is indeed the case. You would...

Where evolution is concerned, "this happened hundreds of billions of years ago..." must necessarily be conjecture.

I do agree with this. We do not have direct evidence (video of dinosaurs, eyewitness accounts, etc) so we scientists do have to guess - but those guesses are not simply pulled out their butt and then accepted as fact simply because they sound good. There is enough supportive data to support their idea. You can also make predictions based on an idea and find out that they hold up.

As an example of evolutionary prediction, you would expect to find more primitive creatures deeper in the strata and more modern versions at the top. This is indeed the case. You would also expect to see transitions between the species in the layers in the correct order, which is also supported by what is found.

So while we do not have direct observational evidence, we can be pretty confident in accepting the theory of how evolution works (not if it works, how it works). As you pointed out, our ability of reasoning is what is used to make these determinations. If someone comes up with better ideas that are supported even better by evidence and data then that new idea can be accepted.

There is a huge difference in having faith based on one's will alone to accept it and faith in something that has been established and proven over and over. Also, it is ok to say "I don't know" for the things that we don't rather than just filling in our ignorance with default belief. "I don't know" will inspire people to find out, while acceptance of "god did it" tends to lead people to apathy.