How can any religion or science actually claim they know?

Question

Science doesn't know enough about evololution and what formed everything. They have theories.
Religion's have faith. No one knows. To claim that you know without a doubt is presumptuous.
How can faith be the proof of things not seen? There are so many different faiths?
So if no one really knows please stop arguing it is pointless.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough.
I did not mean the evolution of man, I mean't the evolution of the universe.
There is mostly just speculation and theories. So there, you have it.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories
Assumptions to form a theory,
An assumption according to Asimov is "something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality.... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible."
Report It

Answer 1

both tend to presume they know more than they actually do

Answer 2

Nobody really knows the definitive answer, but that certainly doesn't stop people from saying (and believing) they do. Religions tend to persuade people that all definitive answers can be found in the tenets of that religion, and all contrary assertions are by definition false.

On the other hand, evolution is current scientific theory, which means that while we can't say for sure what happened at every point on the biological timeline, the best available evidence leads us to believe that this is the most logical working theory. At any time that legitimate contradictory evidence comes to light which disproves evolution, then the scientist must discard the theory or revise it to incorporate the new evidence. So far, no such evidence has been produced, in spite of continuous claims that certain religious texts authoritatively state that it cannot be true.

The reason to discuss the subject and continue the argument is to refine the theory, so that we can come to the most accurate explanation for why things are they way they are. Scientific principle is based on the concept of peer review, which means the only way we can improve a theory (including the theory of evolution) is to attack it from every angle to find the gaps in logic. So far, evolution has held up, but that doesn't mean the discussion is over.

Answer 3

Actually they have evolution as a big idea pretty solidly down. There are some cosmological things that they only have ideas about but that is even starting to get close.

Tested predictions made by the model are the proof. Evolution literally has millions of them. The Big Bang has many as well. Religion predicted that the Earth was flat and the Sun moved around it.

Answer 4

Science is the only trustworthy means to certainty, as close as we can get to knowing without doubt. The record of both advancement and self correction in science is far superior to religion, and thus has legitimate claim to being heard. If a religious claim is contrary to the scientific evidence, the religion is wrong, and there is no argument.

Answer 5

I know that one has to be right. Either there is no God or there is a God. I do not claim to know the truth but I went with what makes more sense. Something making the leaf, the stars, the planets, the ear, the hand, etc is more sensible than nothing making it all there is no contradiction between science and the Bible so I see it more sensible. You have a right to believe whatever you want

Answer 6

Scientists are not afraid to say 'I don't know', religious cults claim to have all the answers. Science does know a lot about evolution, enough that it is a scientific theory with over 150 years of evidence, knowledge and observation in over a dozen fields of science. Comparing science and religious cults is the same as comparing reality with delusion.

Answer 7

If we both see paw prints going into a doghouse, science and reason will tell us that a dog walked through the yard. Faith allows us to believe Paris Hilton may have bought paw-shaped shoes and wandered through the yard.

Not all conclusions are equal.

Answer 8

The word "know" does not imply the impossibility of being wrong, it's just a best judgement based on experience.

If we say "we know humans evolved from ...", this does not imply the impossibility of error, it's just the best conclusion available based on the evidence.

Faith, on the other hand, is not based on anything external at all. It's belief by act of sheer will. That isn't legitimately called 'knowledge' in any sense.

Answer 9

Yeah! Science only has theories, like the theory of gravity.

The fact is that science backs up its ideas with evidence. Religion just makes up stuff.

Answer 10

a million) not all religions have a particular creation delusion 2) not everyone take their faith's creation delusion actually, determining that the objective of mythology is to coach a lesson, which contain guy's dating with deity. 3) Australopithecus substitute into not formed from "chaotic random mutations". Genetic mutations easily performed a factor of it, yet so did issues like organic determination. and determination is the alternative of "random". you're suitable that it is "your assumption", and it is a bogus assumption in line with you not understanding how evolution works.

Answer 11

Science is not a faith, it is a testable process which leads to answers that are tested again.

As for theories, read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories