Does it matter if we believe things that are true or not?
From the perspective of unbelievers the answer is No....because they don't believe that they have anything to lose. But from the perspective of Christians, we have been given a commission....not to convert people, but to inform them of a situation that exists in this world that explains why humans are absolutely hopeless at successfully ruling themselves....and offering them a better alternative. The hearers can then evaluate the information and either act on it or ignore it.....its up to them.
I don't think that's really in question, no.
Freedom of religion is written into the constitutions of many nations.....it is a precious freedom, valued by the spiritually minded, but not valued at all by those without faith.
This is yet further equivocation. The fact that things in the world can't be "proven" as absolute fact doesn't mean therefore all beliefs are equally reasonable or aligned with the evidence. We should prefer a worldview that is able to accurately, testably map the world we experience, shouldn't we?
I would acknowledge those "accurate" "testable" pieces of "evidence" if they existed. I have been arguing with evolutionists for years and not once has anyone come up with convincing "proof" for what they claim. I have been given a wide range of suggestions...assertions....insinuations and lots of "could have's" and "might have's", but real science is not prefaced by such terminology.....it is the language of wishful thinking....and fudging of the "evidence" IMO.
The science buffs claim that science is not about "proof"....well, how convenient.
There are countless threads on this site alone where you could educate yourself on how evolution works and the ample evidence we have for it. Again, I think it's too large of a rabbit trail to go there in this thread.
I have read them and dismissed them all on the same grounds.....they did not 'educate' me one bit on "how evolution works" because there was nothing offered for which they could furnish proof.......the "evidence" itself is not ample, but the interpretation is......volumes of it......all assertions not facts. We have the same evidence as they do and come to a completely different conclusion because science is not our religion.
You are simply uninformed regarding the state of scientific evidence, as I said before. Regarding terminology, language changes - I actually don't know if your usage or the scientific usage is older, but it's irrelevant for the discussion here.
"Uninformed"...hmmmm where have I heard that before...?
No matter...it is an old argument that never gets past testability. Science's claims for the interpretation of their evidence always turn up very short, but that is their problem. We can believe them or not....I choose not.
No one thinks you "popped out of thin air."
Again, this is an old argument. The number of times we Bible believers get accused of believing in some big wizard in the sky 'poofing' things into existence....and yet what do we find in science's explanation of how life on planet earth evolved and what it evolved from...? Turns out that abiogenesis is a taboo subject in evolutionary science because that branch of science itself suggests that life just 'poofed' itself in to existence for no apparent reason, and somehow morphed itself into every life form that exists on this planet......and that somehow this "life" came fully equipped with written information that makes sure that each lifeform stays the same. The whole "beneficial mutation" argument falls apart when you consider how many beneficial mutations can actually be named. We all know that a mutation is not something that is beneficial to 99.9% of any organism. How many 'accidents' do you know of that were beneficial?
I believe research scientists and public health professionals and organizations who have literally dedicated their careers to disseminating accurate, verifiable public health information. And the verifiable empirical research they have done to arrive at their conclusions.
I hope you understand who 'owns' the health system and who 'drives' the science institutions...?
They are paid well to keep to the status quo. No dissenters last long there. Whether their findings are "accurate and verifiable" is up for grabs in a world of egos and money....but hey, that is for us to decide whether to trust them or not.
Unfortunately, we can be quite easily conned, particularly if we haven't developed sound critical thinking skills and media and research literacy.
I think that the majority are conned,
despite the fact that the intelligentsia believe that they can't be. "Sound critical thinking skills" can also be lost on those who have swallowed a very big lie.
I wish religious institutions taught more of that and less strawmen about people "popping out of thin air" and other such things.
I have to agree with you here, as I do not belong to one of those. There is no big magician in the sky waving a magic wand.....the Creator is just that....a careful and mindful Creator. He took a very long time to produce a habitable earth and I firmly believe that each environment was thoughtfully put in place before he created its tenants....including us. As I said, Intelligent Design is seen everywhere because creation is not a series of undirected flukes.....but you can believe that if you wish.....
Science deals in evidence. Proof is for math and logic.