After "debating" with some of the less intelligent Christians on this forum(I know not all of you are like that, props to you guys), it has become clear to me that many don't understand scientific inquiry. I blame indoctrination primarily, as many of these people have never encountered science with an open mind. I'm going to give a couple of excerpts from one of my psychology textbooks that will (hopefully) help me to educate those people. I have two goals for this thread: Either A) The target audience sees the logic in my post and realizes how stupid they were. Or B) They deny my logic due to their closed-mindedness, but at least they realize how silly it is to expect to win an argument simply by giving quotes from a book. Here is the first excerpt. It's kind of long, and not all of it is relevant, but don't worry. I will summarize the key points. [spoiler][quote]Underlying all science is, first, a hard-headed curiosity, a passion to explore and understand without misleading or being misled, Some questions (ls there life after death?) are beyond science. To answer them in any way requires a leap of faith. With many other ideas (Can some people demonstrate ESP?), the proof is in the pudding. No matter how sensible or crazy-sounding an idea, the hard-headed question is, Does it work when put to the test, can its predictions be confirmed? This scientific approach has a long history. As ancient a figure as Moses used such an approach. How do you evaluate a self-proclaimed prophet? His answer: Put the prophet to the test. Ifthe predicted event "does not take place or prove true," then so much the worse for the prophet (Deuteronomy 1,8:22). Magician James Randi uses Moses' approach when testing those claiming to see auras around people's bodies: Randi: Do you see an aura around my head? Aura-seer: Yes,indeed. Randi: Can you still see the aura if I put this magazine in front of my face? Aura-seer: Of course. Randi: Then if I were to step behind a wall barely taller than I am, you could determine my location from the aura visible above my head, right? Randi has told me that no aura-seer has agreed to take this simple test. When subjected to such scrutiny, crazy-sounding ideas sometimes find support. During the 1700s, scientists scoffed at the notion that meteorites had extraterrestrial origins. When two Yale scientists dared to deviate from the conventional opinion, Thomas Jefferson jeered, "Gentlemen, I would rather believe that those two Yankee Professors would lie than to believe that stones fell from heaven." Sometimes scientific inquiry refutes skeptics. More often, science relegates crazy-sounding ideas to the mountain of forgotten claims of perpetual motion machines, miracle cancer cures, and out-of-body travels into centuries past. To sift reality from fantasy, sense from nonsense, therefore re- quires a scientific attitude: being skeptical but not cynical, open but not gullible. [/quote][/spoiler] This one is not quite so long, and should be easy enough to read, but I'll give key points anyway because I know most of you won't read it. [spoiler][quote]Psychologists arm their scientific attitude with the scientific method: They make observations, form theories, and then refine their theories in the light of new observations. In everyday conversation, we tend to use theory to mean "mere hunch." In science, however, theory is linked with observation. A scientific theory explains through an integrated set of principles that organizes and predicts behaviors or events. By organizing isolated facts, a theory simplifies things. There are too many facts about behavior to remember them all. By linking facts and bridging them to deeper principles, a theory offers a useful summary. When we connect the observed dots, we may discover a coherent picture.[/quote][/spoiler] Ok, main points: [b]Claims must be able to be tested successfully.[/b] Yes, even Moses agreed. We've all heard the argument of "Science can't disprove God", as well of the counter-argument of "Science can't disprove X ridiculous thing either, but that doesn't make it logical to believe in it." Whether or not it is logical to have faith in an untestable idea is a different discussion, but to state that an untestable idea is fact is completely illogical. If you don't take a driving test, the DMV will assume you can't drive and will not issue you a license. If you don't take a drug test, your boss will assume that you're on drugs and will probably fire you. The same goes for all factual claims. [b]Scientific ideas are based on observation. [/b] Science examines information, then draws a conclusion based on that information, then continues to test that conclusion against all future evidence, whether it supports or conflicts with the original conclusion. This is infinitely better than the majority of religion, which begins with a conclusion and works backwards to find evidence for said conclusion, but only evidence that will support it. [b]A theory is NOT a guess.[/b] As I said above, scientific ideas are based on observation, and a theory is one of the highest levels of those ideas. Saying an idea isn't good because it's only a theory is like saying Einstein wasn't very smart because he was only a genius, or that Michael Phelps wasn't a good swimmer because he was only an Olympic gold medalist. It's moronic at best. A theory is based on large amounts of supporting evidence. A theory is in no way "something that doesn't have enough proof to become a law". A law is a small-scale, easily observable occurrence, one which can typically be expressed mathematically, and which often supports a theory. [b]It doesn't matter how crazy an idea sounds.[/b] People used to believe it was crazy to say that the Earth wasn't flat. People used to think it was crazy to say that the Earth revolved around the Sun. People used to say it was crazy to think that maggots came from eggs and didn't magically appear from nothing. They used to think it was crazy to think that disease was caused by microscopic organisms rather than demons. No scientist could voice those same opinions today and ever be taken seriously again. It doesn't matter how logical or illogical an idea may seem to a given person, because a person's reasoning is almost entirely limited to what they already know, or think they know. All that matters is that there is evidence for an idea. [b]Changing answers is a good GOOD thing.[/b] I often see this used as an argument against science, and it takes all of my willpower not to go into severe depression. First of all, what the general public or a given scientist believes and what has been concluded using science are not the same thing. There was never extensive scientific research suggesting that the Earth was flat. When scientific consensus changes, it's usually a minor adjustment to the existing answer. If an idea is found to be flawed, it's better to replace it than it is to cling to it. (For example, if someone points out a legitimate error in this post, I will correct it.) Some then say "If the old answer was bad, how can we trust this one?" That's true. There could be a better answer. However, unless you have that answer, then you can't really criticize the current answer, because you don't know either. Which leads to my final point: [b]Saying "I don't know" is also good.[/b] People often ask questions such as "How did the first organism come to be" or "What caused the Big Bang", to which scientists are forced to say "I don't know". Though some consider this a weakness of science, admitting ignorance is actually the best possible thing to do. Imagine for a moment that you're in school, whether it be middle school, high school, or college. One of your teachers asks you to write a research paper. Regardless of how much you think you know about this topic, you're going to get a failing grade if you write this paper using no outside sources. It's a research paper, so you're going to do research. You will write your paper based on the findings of your research, and you won't try to make up any facts. Because science only draws conclusions that it has sufficient evidence for, it never needs to make assumptions about the unknowns, making its findings that much more reliable. I hope this will help some of you realize that science has nothing to do with faith or bias, and is thus infinitely better than any religion. Unfortunately, I know many of you will simply reject this because it does not fit in to your warped view of reality. Before replying, remember that avoiding the burden of proof is a logical fallacy, and so are Ad Hominem, Red Herring, Strawman, Bandwagon, Appeal to Authority, and Special Pleading.