What Myth?

[Erthona]

I don't see religion challenging the theory of evolution, I just don't see evolution as infallible as some of it's sycophants would have you believe. At the moment it explains the facts as we know them better than anything else, I suspect that in a thousand years, if humans are still around and haven't regressed, it will appear as archaic as the idea that illness is caused by bad humors, and the remedy for that was blood letting. The problem with any theory is the phrase "facts as we know them". I suspect at the time blood letting fit the facts as they knew them. Religionist have not cornered the market on rigidity in thought, or rather you could say that religionist are just as common in the field of science as they are in religion, they simply have a different god. However, just because the subject they rabidly promote is different, or even in line with what I think, doesn't mean I find them any more appealing. I have had discussions with religious people that I found much more pleasant, although we disagreed, than discussions with dogmatic scientist that I generally agreed with. At least one expects the idea of faith to be part of religion, it is quite disturbing when it wanders into the philosophy of science.

I believe certain things because it is impossible to live life without doing so, however, I try to not hold so firmly to any of them that I cannot change it when I have been shown it is in error, or that it causes me much pain to do so. To invest so much in a belief that I cannot change it when I need to, is to make that thought my god. Even since the scientific method was introduced, there have been several paradigm shifts in science, and I suspect we are about due for one shortly. As in ages past, the old guard will leave fingernail tracks in the old one as it is pried from their hands, and some will never let go.

Dale