And here's the crux of the issue. Many scientists are not encouraging questioning of their belief in Macroevolution.
They are being hypocrites because they need Macroevolution to support their religion (see worldview), and will defend it tooth and nail dogmatically and with zeal.
At least Creationists accept that religion/worldview is a component of why they support Creationism. Macroevolutionists should be so forthcoming.
Prediction before reading beyond comment 1: at least a few Macroevolutionists are going to make snide comments about the religion/relgion typo and Creationists' intelligence.
A big thing is, that science can almost completely function without even delving into origins. There's little reason on a scientific level for why Macroevolutionists are willing to fight so irrationally hard on this issue to the point where it becomes blindly obvious that Macroevolution has become for them an article of faith.
P.S. Personal opinion is that bringing global warming/climate change into this isn't good for 'the cause.'
later read
Science can’t be overrated, but “scientists” certainly can be. I remember, early on in the current global warming debate, that the left published a list of 2,000 “scientists” that agreed with Algore. What they didn’t tell us about that list was that it contained just a handful of climatologists but a huge number of “social scientists” who were little more than left-wing whores.
Actually most physicists at this time didn't believe in particles of matter. The atomic theory wouldn't gain wide acceptance for at least another decade.
The author could use a fact-checker.
Pure nonsense. Hasn't this guy ever heard of forensic science? How about archeology?
“Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.”
Just because they provide an answer does not mean it is correct. I am sure Jim Jones had all the answers for his sheeps questions right up until the moment they lined up and drank the kool-aid.
While there are similarities, this is because there are only a few ways for institutions of any size to function. Parallel and analogy okay, but substitution is pushing the model.
read later
>>Science can only deal effectively with the present.<<
Its amazing the author could have so little knowledge of the subject and yet get published on it.
religion is about spirituality... religion is not about science.
If science is too dificult to understand, read a book, or take up 6th grade science.