Replies

"If scientists work their tails off trying to prove a hypothesis and fail, then it was in vain and there is no reason to think they have advanced the cause of truth in any way."

You are not real clear on this whole "scientific method" thing, are you?

You see, if a scientist proposes THEORY A, and many scientist "work their tails off" and show it to be FALSE, then the cause of truth IS advanced. We know THEORY A is false, and we can devote efforts to other areas of study. Peer reviewed science does this ALL THE TIME, and in fact is one of the greatest strengths of the "scientific method". Your work goes on being "checked" for years and years after you make it generally known.

Often, an original theory might have "the big picture" right, but fail for certain data, and require refinements. An excellent example of this is Newtonian motion and gravity. For all but the most extreme cases, the laws of motion and gravity worked out by Newton fit precisely with experimental measurements. However, under certain conditions, measurements disagree with Newton. Is Newtonian physics "wrong"? No. Newtonian physics is "incomplete". Einstein was needed to bring addtional understanding to the bizzare extremes of relativity.

My point is that it is the SCIENTISTS that are the ones continually striving for the "truth". For the most part, people holding to dogmatic religious beliefs are the "static" players. They have read their ancient texts (take your pick), drawn their conclusions, and that is the end of that. There are notable exceptions, of course, such as Lemaitre, Mendel and others, but on the whole, religious institutions have a track record of RETARDING inquiry, if they feel it threatens their orthodoxy.

The theory of evolution makes some VERY SPECIFIC predictions about what should be observed, and those can be tested. By and large, those predictions are met with observational evidence. Is it "complete"? No, much in the same way that Newtonian physics is "incomplete".

What about all those people working their tails off in "Islamic Studies", or "Hindu Studies" or "Norse Mythological Studies"? Are they working in vain? If so, why, and what reasons can you give that they are working in vain that do not apply to whatever religion you happen to favor?