You'd be hard-pressed indeed, I think, to find anyone who claims that "science" is infallible.  In fact, the essence of the scientific method is the realization that our knowledge is never total, and that we must always update (or scrap) existing theories to accommodate new facts - as opposed to, say, "creation science," which is concerned with force-fitting facts into pre-existing dogmas.

I disagree with your assessment of creation science,Demetrios_of_Phaleron@xanga.  I personally believe that creation science takes what we see and makes a natural and simple conclusion, that all the animal and plant life in the world was created distinctively from each other as God says it happened in the Bible.

I put some faith in science, when it is truly science and scientific.  However, my faith in God far outweighs my faith in sicence, for anyhting that is man-made is imperfect, but God is always perfect.... 

Just to clarify your statements, huginn@xanga, it was the Roman Catholic Faith that stood on the principles of Ptolemy's model (something that "infallible" Rome admitted was a mistake on the 500th anniversary of Galileo's birth).  Even in the darkest of the Dark Ages, the Roman Catholic Faith was not the only Christian faith around...

@JandJinJapan@xanga - The views of the Catholic Church ideas on astronomy was indictive of the general mainstream Christian thinking of the time.

Martin Luther, for instance, was a fervent geocentrist

Technology is our undoing.  While making our lives easier, it also makes us complacent and creates a false perception of reality. 

People need to realize and admit that there is far more to our existence than discovery and gaining knowledge. 

"always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth."  - 2 Timothy 3:7. 

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 
   'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
      the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.' 

Where is the wise man?  Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."  - 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. 

@huginn@xanga - Thank you for saying to well that I don't have to. 

Disagree, huginn@xanga.  If Evolution is so sicentific, why is it thast the supporters of Evolution continually rebuff those who wish to use scientific dialogue to challenege them, including those who support Creation and Intelligent Design?  It is certainly hypocritical of one faith-based idea posing as science (Evolution) to rebuff in the court system other fiath-based ideas, especially when the former states with emphasis and clarity that it is science.  What does Evolution have to fear from Ibntelligent Design and Creation in that it cannot come to the table to scientific debate, and isntead, but must use outside means to maintain its validity?

Further, there is no concrete evidence of the proof of Evolution being true.  What makes Isaac Newton's laws of gravity scientific laws is that there is credible, validated, and exhaustive research done to show conclusively that gravity ism indeed, a scientific law of nature.  No such proof exists for Evolution....

So, I am to assume, then, Demetrios_of_Phaleron@xanga, that those sicentists who say that it took millions of years for evolution to take place were around to watch that evolution take place for those millions of years?  Am I to believe, if faith is not involved with Evolution, that someone, a million or a billion, years ago observed evolution's start, then, somehow, managed to either write all of the observations down himself/herself, or was able to pass them on through generation after generation after generation (keeping in mind that history teaches that legible writing has been around for only a few thousand years)?  Are we, in the general population, to understand that this observation of Evolution over the vast amounts of humanly-impossble-to-live time, in fact, were lived out by someone who saw evolution's progress up until today, or at least, lived out a great number of those years, and passed them on to another person who lived out those great numbers of years, despite the fact that Evolution alledges that man has only been arund for a million or so years?  The scientific method involves experimentation and observation, so, if it is true that Evolution is not faith-based, then whose millions-of-years-old journals and observations do we have to peruse and to prove that Evolution is not, in fact, faith based?

@JandJinJapan@xanga - If you go into a forest and see a tree that has fallen, and you see evidence of a disease which had rotten out the core of the tree, then you can fairly confidently say that the tree had a disease which caused it to fall, even if no one was there to see it happen.  Hypothesizing that the tree had simply been created hollow and rotting in a sideways state so that a supreme being could fuel the ecosystem?  That would be worthy of a mental institution.

You don't have to see something happen to figure out that it has - without faith in anything but your own observations.

But we're not talking about a disease, which can be observed over time, and can have scientific and medical experimentation, with the abilityto have said data from experimentation written down for all to see and/or disprove (with regards to Evolution) are we, la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga?  We are talking about something that people -- who, allegedly and accodringly to Evolution, have only been around for a fraction of the time that the Earth and Universe have been around -- have stated with clarity and concrete statements is akin to a scietific law....yet there can be no observation nor true experimentation undertaken due to the extreme amounts of time sequences involved.  Your analogy, la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga, can be equated, as well, with Creation.  The problem is that we cannot see and have not seen the actual beginning of Evolution, and people who support Evolution have always thrown it in the face of people who support Creation that "nobody was there to see God work, so it can't be a science".  Same thing with Evolution.  Nobody was around to see the first pollywog to for mlegs from fins walk out of the primordial sea, yet Evolutionists declare that such is what happened.  Nobody was around to see the alleged comet that struck the earth and destroyed the dinosaurs, yet, to a man, that is what the vast majority of Evolution's proponents state happened.  All the while, anyone daring to declare that the dinosaurs died as a result of the Great Flood of Genesis are resoundingly laughed out of a science classroom, defamed as a "religious nut" and given an "F" for the semester from his or her professor, becasue "nobody actually 'saw' the great flood happen, except for this mythological 'Noah' and his 'alleged' family..."  Hypocritical? Or, again, is one faith-based idea being received and believed over another, simply because the first faith-based idea happens to be robed as "science"? 

Thank you, and you, as well, Demetrios_of_Phaleron@xanga. 

you do have a valid point, but religion has had its fopas as well... not God, but the institution has made its mistakes- the crusades were folly... the witch hunts.. persecution, war, lies, disorderly conduct of clergy... the selling of indulgences. Neither science nor religion are perfect... both are human institutions.

@la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga - And that, my dear, is simply a false statement of nothing but pure ignorance. 

@JandJinJapan@xanga - If Evolution is so sicentific, why is it thast the supporters of Evolution continually rebuff those who wish to use scientific dialogue to challenege them, including those who support Creation and Intelligent Design?

I'm answer this on a couple different levels:

1.) In science, creation challenge has not answered the bell. Journal-quality research and actual evidence. Anyone can put together sweet hand-wave arguments; but in science, ideas are seriously considered only if they have a serious body of research or support behind them.

2.) In informal scientific discussion and in public discourse; "creation science" doesn't deserve consideration because Evolution has seriuosly established itself. Talk of intelligent design or creation science as an alternative to Evolution is as ridiculous as the claims of Revisionist WW II Historians.

Like the evidence for the Holocuast, the evidence for Evolution is real and obvious. Proof of evolution and understanding of its mechanisms runs wide and deep-- sweeping through nearly all the subfields of biology. 

It is certainly hypocritical of one faith-based idea posing as science (Evolution) to rebuff in the court system other fiath-based ideas...

No aspect of evolution itself is "faith based." Particular applications of evolution to natural history may be tenuous. But evolution, as a process and as mechanism is ridicuously well supported.

I am willing to enter a more detailed discussion of this sub-discussion of "evolution/faith" if you'd like.

..What does Evolution have to fear from Ibntelligent Design and Creation in that it cannot come to the table to scientific debate, and isntead, but must use outside means to maintain its validity?

The heliocentric model has nothing to fear of the geocentric. There are actual flat-earthers out ther and there are people who actually deny the American lunar landing-- we deny them a voice and a fourm because they don't deserve it.

Creationism and Intelligent Design have been shut out of public discoruse because they have no serious scientific merit.

Further, there is no concrete evidence of the proof of Evolution being true.

There is most definite "proof" of common descent-- that at one point, species as divergent as mice and men have shared a common genetic template in a common ancestor.

We see the same identical genetic "footprints," in the genome of mammals. I'm not talking about operational genes, but genetic junk that serves no functions of their own: Pseudogenes (broken non-working genes) and transposon elements (viral left-overs).

What makes Isaac Newton's laws of gravity scientific laws is that there is credible, validated, and exhaustive research...No such proof exists for Evolution...

I've made summarizing points about the genetic support for common descent. This is type of "proof" for evolution, and I'd like to see your treatment of this argument.