mhsillen said:
If you do then evolution should get the same respect in your eyes. Written by men who's reputations and money are riding on it. |
I'm sorry, but this reasoning is flawed. What people say aren't absolute states, like you seem to think. Two ideas that exist do not have equal footing, especially when it comes to the scientific method.
There are many ways in which this can act, but right now I'll just go for the context of what your post. Something that is written, but adaptable to change, will always finish as more correct than something written and not adaptable to change. I acknowledge that these aren't absolute states, but exist in a spectrum. But I also think that the theory of evolution and the bible exist on polar opposites of this spectrum.
The key difference between evolution and the bible is that evolution isn't bogged down with dogmas and rituals. The bible (as with many religious texts) is seen as infallible, not to be questioned, and regardless of how much evidence disproves something written in it, you have to accept it as a fact you must not challenge. Very rarely are these dogmas challenged and changed (I believe it was 1993 before the church changed from a geocentric view of the solar system to heliocentric view, 400 years after geocentric model was disproved).
The theory of evolution on the other hand changes frequently to conform with the evidence, constantly changing towards a more correct answer. If you want to test this for yourself I suggest reading an early edition of "On the origin of species" and read a modern evolutionary biology text book. It will be instantly clear how much the theory of evolution has changed in just 150 years. Our understanding of evolution has gone through an astonishing change (but the core ideas remain).
(Also, I recognise the bible as a book written by man, with no divine influence.)
