Oh yes they do. For some reason when it comes to the bible it is required to provide emirical proof but every other subject can base anything they want on faith.
The bible makes bold claims and with bold claims evidence should follow. So far you haven't presented anything where "science" does this.
For example everything that concerns whatever happened at the beginning of life is just as much a matter of faith as what religions suggest.
While biologist pontificate over the origin of life they freely and openly admit they just don't know. What they do know is how life evolved on this planet. The bible on the other hand is explicit how life originated and unfortunately the evidence we have suggest the bible is wrong on the matter.
I don't mind educated guesses just don't call them facts.
No one in science puts forth and educated guess as fact. Their educated guess still lies in the hypothesis state. About time you see it published as a fact it has gone through a rigorous peer review process. Who peer reviews the claims of the bible?
That is about the furthest thing from the case imagineable. There is no book in human history that is still as relevant or contentious. I have watched hundreds of hours of modern debates and the issues have not abated at all. That is one view, you arbitrarily chose. The other is a very well known, believed and studied view that evolution and Genesis are compatable.
The bible's creation myth and biological evolution are far from being compatible. While this thread is not about inerrancy of the bible....you'd have a hard time trying to sale the claims of the bible to scientist in various respective fields. The bible fails the test hands down.
Thre is not a single known scientific error in the bible outside of the few scribal errors have produced.
There sure are...but that can be for another thread.
The bible is no biological textbook. It's subject is infinately more important. It has no comprehensive teaching about genetics. I do not see how a geneology is relevant.
Of course you don't. The creation myth has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution because most scholars contend the story is just that...(a story). But those who originally wrote the story presented the story as if it was a literal story....and because they wrote it as a literal story genealogy is detailed from Adam to Yeshua. I leave you to ponder the implications here...if said story was not literal and Adam and Eve were not real people who are not a bloodline.
Much of the scientific claims thrown around these days can't possibly be subjected to experiment or observation, and there for have virtually no empirical data. Take abiogenesis or macro-evolution.
What biologist do you know are talking about abiogenisis? None that I'm aware of. Define macro-evolution? Evolution is the accumulation of small changes in biological organisms.
Dismissed for reasons that have nothing to do with reality. Are you so dogmatic not to understand how much of reality is undetectable by a narrow empiricle test.
If it's undetectable then prattle on about something you can't test?
In fact the far more meaningful issuses like morality, meaning, destination, origin, purpose, astetic value, love, etc... can't possibly be verified by empirical methods.
"Love" can be tested. As far as the others....science has no opinion on them per se. They fall in the realm of psychology.
If you can look at the complexity of the human brain (the most complex arrangement of matter in the known universe) and think it got here by sheer chance that requires more faith than religion and has not been nor ever will be observed happening.
Again, biological evolution has nothing to do with origin of life...only the fact that all life on the planet is related and evolves.
You said the supernatural can't be evaluated by the scientific method as it is a hypothetical process. That I agree with.
I can't believe a person as intelligent as you must be could possibly ask this. How about the sanctity of life. You can either honestly say that that doesn't exist without God, or you can attempt to smuggle it in using insuffecient justification.
What sanctity of life? Does your sanctity exist only within your species (human) or are you about saving the baby chicks before they become scrambled eggs? Do you picket McDonald's or KFC for the many cows and chickens that have been killed to satisfy ones hunger.....or did they not have the same right as you to live without us slaughtering them? Please clarify what you mean by sanctity of life.
They are subjectively experienced however their objective nature can be implied by the fact that we all (includeing you) act as if there are actually real ultimate good and evil.
That's the difference between you and I. I don't see good and evil. We all act on our own moral compass.
Without God we are left with an insuffecient, subjective, meaningless, nihilists, schezophrenic morality.
I'm without "god". I have been all my life since birth and I can honestly say...that I have led a great life, have a wonderful family, raised wonderful children/grand children...If you believe your life is better with "god" in it then who am I to begrudge you of that...
I don't care what a scientist does as long as he is honest and stays in the lab and doesn't think his biology degree makes him a moral or theological philosopher.
I don't have a problem with that. There are many scientist that do that. Dawkins isn't the first, the only or the last to do such a thing.
Ok, just a couple weaks ago there were two back to back shows. The first claimed that they were certain that the universe is actually two dimensional and the 3d effect is a hologram. This had something to do with the way black holes work (another guess). That was silly enough, but the second show was on string thoery. Many of them put forth their ideas as though they were fact even though string theory can't produce any evidence what so ever. They then went on to say that the universe must have 11 dimensions. So two shows claiming they were pretty sure two contradictory claims must be true. What makes it really bad is that they were the very same scientists who apparently were not clever enough to figure out the shows would be shown together. That plus everything after approx 100,000 years and backwards. They honestly have an ounce of data (and micro evolution is a fact) but they produce a ton of theory based on it and call it fact. Every thing concerning historical events before the ability to record history is an educated guess based an limited evidence and that is faith. That is exactly the same as Christianity. Only we admit it is faith.
Two subjects I know little about. I understand some of the data but not enough to debate the subject.
How do they observe or test any bilogical event that happened more than 10,000 years ago?
Take humans for instance. We have a complete genome that we can compare with that of chimpanzees and Neanderthals (and other hominids)...and what we know is that we share a distant common ancestor. We can do this with many species on the planet. It isn't a guess to say that man, chimpanzees, gorillas and hominid species founds in the fossil record are related. We actual have empirical testable data that confirms it.
