Hi Linda. While I find science interesting, I don't have the "trust" in it that many people seem to do.
People don't "trust" science. Science describes observable and testable physical reality. Some theories have been around for a very long time because they best describe the evidence. As Pwcca said, do you "trust" gravity, or do you accept through evidence that it exists?
In many ways, science has become a new religion - one that is set up in opposition to other faith systems, one that certain people put all their faith in.
Science is evidence-based. Religion is not. Evolution is the accepted theory for how life came to be the way it is today. Do you have evidence you can present for your own alternate ideas? What are they exactly?
I personally can't do that, not given how science is continually advancing and old theories continually proved wrong. The scienfic knowledge of today may be no more than a scientific myth tomorrow.
Good science throws out unworkable ideas in the light of new evidence. I think you will find, however, that in the case of evolution the scientific disagreements focus on aspects of the theory, rather than the validity of the theory itself.
Are you also waiting for someone to throw out the theory that the sun travels round the earth? Are you afraid we might fly off the planet tomorrow in case someone got gravity wrong?
As to creation versus evolution, I don't personally believe creation had to either happen in days or millions of years. I don't know, and I don't believe science does either.
On the contrary, scientists believe that the earth is about 3.8 billion years old, and the universe is about 13.5 billion years old. These calculations have been arrived at in a variety of ways. I suggest you have a browse of the Creation vs. Evolution site
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dBoard.cgi because you will find answers to these kinds of questions there. You can ask questions yourself if you like.
If a God made the universe, or more specifically the world, then the power of that God (compared to human) would be awesome. Thus, that God could manipulate nature so that what appears to science to have taken millions of years, could have taken God only seconds - i.e. could speed up nature at his will and then slow it down to our mortal pace. If a God can create the laws of nature, laws that science attemps to study, then that God can manipulate them.
You seem to be saying that God can play around with things any way he likes. For all we know, everything could have been created yesterday, and all these false memories planted in our brains. I would ask what motivation a god would have to fool people in such a way.
You also seem to want to think that all known physical laws could have been different when things were created. At which point did God fix them the way they are now, then? And how does this explain all the evidence for the earth being a very old place in a very, very old universe?
Science does not, in general, concede that there is a supernatural world i.e. one that exists in energy rather than matter. But because we lack the technology to detect non-material entities, doesn't mean they don't exist.
If your point is that scientists by nature don't believe in God, then how do you explain all the theistic scientists?
it is a scientists job to understand the natural world better and not exclude the supernatural world because they personally have not had supernatural encounters. So many people have claimed to, in so many cultures over so many generations.
I have been discussing this very thing on CvE. If you spoke to scientists, you will find that they tend to be very skeptical people. It is the nature of their job. They do not accept the validity of something until sufficient evidence exists to support it. Personal anecdote is not evidence because people can be mistaken or lying. What other evidence can you think of to support the existence of the supernatural? Photos like the one here? Not very likely.
A skeptic uses a law called Occam's razor; you may have heard of it. It says that when determining the likely cause of an event, the most "normal" or mundane one should always be chosen. OK, was life today created by a supernatural being, or did it evolve? There is extensive verifiable evidence for evolution. Can you say the same for creation?
You could, of course, decide to believe that evolution is God's way of creation. This is what many people believe.
Thanks for getting the subject back on track here. I know it's hard arguing with a skeptic, particularly one who calls your beliefs into question. I've had a pasting from them myself lately, but I'm learning that a good dose of skepticism can be a very healthy thing. It's the way we learn about the world.
