....stuff deleted
Science deals with proven observable and reproducable facts, then tries
to establish a reasonalbe explanation for those facts. I have no
problem with true science, just theories mascarading as science when
there is little or no proof.


Do you understand the nature of a theory? A theory, such as say,
gravity, is one which has no scientific evidence disproving it. In other
words, theories are backed by solid, repeatible, and reliable scientific
proofs. The inability of religion to discredit a theory, say, evolution,
does more to support its foundations than to weaken them.

I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible is
a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations
recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science.


Oh? Give me a single instance where an observation in the bible
parallels one of science. Mendel did wonders for science, but he
provided support for evolution, not for the existence of a god, but his
work isn't recorded in said bible. The bible is, at best, a good parable
for how a society can be structure and survive the test of time. If
everyone were to follow the words of Jesus, I have no doubt that our
society would be greatly improved. Sadly, as is always the case, the
self-righteous always outnumber the righteous.

It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts
that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become
faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would
be little conflict. If the teacher restricts himself to equipping his
students to go into the field and observe facts, he will still have a
job to pay the mortgage, etc.


Science doesn't try to become anything. Scientists interpret their
observations, report them, and those results that cannot be reproduced,
are discarded. Those who poorly understand science, however, often made
assertions based upon their incomplete understanding of that work.
Sadly, those who reinterpret these results for the masses, often make
errors or use poor anologies which confuse the results. Hence, many feel
that Darwin said that humans evolved from apes, when he did not. He
stated, however, that due to our similarities, humans and apes probably
had a common ancestor (which may well have been neither human, nor ape).
Genetics has proven that we share about 98% of our DNA with chimps,
hence providing support for his hypothesis (which is one of thosands of
reasons why it now has the status of theory).

Lacking a scientist on hand to witness the birth of the universe (or any
other being, for that matter), any explaination of "creation" can only
qualify as mythology, or at best, hypothesis. When you invent your time
machine and make those observations, please send us a report.

Rick