I mean, I can understand why the Religious Right of today is frustrated. Back when they were defending Creation against the Big Bang and Evolution, the debate was against the arguments "Scripture Says" versus "this evidence seems to indicate". In the new debates of the "culture wars" (which is really a religious war), it is the Christians who have the evidence on their side, and their opponents who are appealing to authority. And, somehow, Palpatine returned the Christians are losing. They are having the gods of devil worshipers forced upon them, though they have the Truth on their side.

>>853 >it is the Christians who have the evidence on their side, and their opponents who are appealing to authority. I beleive this is true and it's shocking also the new articles coming out trying its hardest to "debunk" Christianity by appealing to alphabet people agenda as I've seen in social media.

>>853 Only some protestants were against big bang and evolutionary theory. Both of which were discovered by Christians. The big bang theory by a Catholic Priest clearly inspired by Saint Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.

>>882 Most scientists don't understand that science is a deeply Christian worldview, and many Christians don't either. You have to believe that the world has rules to believe that the world has rules. (Sagan may have believed that Science was a Candle in the Dark, but the only way to leave the Demon-haunted World is to leave the Demon-haunted World.) It is logically invalid to believe that the world has rules from the fact that it looks like it has rules: this is the problem of induction. Ultimately, believing that the universe has rules for us to discover is an act of faith: it cannot be defended through logic (that is the problem of induction). But, you MUST believe that the world has rules, rules that the fallible human mind can discover, or you CANNOT do science. Science is, ultimately, based on a faith. I want to blame evolution as to why science has become so ... dogmatic. Scientists didn't understand why Evolution was the Scientific way of doing things, so they fell back on appeals to authority. They couldn't articulate that Evolution betters represents this aesthetic that the universe has rules, that we as fallible humans can imperfectly know, and that when you apply the rules of Evolution, the world as it appears to us is an emergent property from the initial conditions. Yes, Evolution contradicts scripture, but it better encompasses the idea that God imparted rules upon the Universe, and the Universe operates according to those rules, over Deep Time. And that's another issue: if you believe that the Universe is only six thousand years old, then you don't have Deep Time. But, the Universe APPEARS to be over six thousand years old (could be Satan, but I'm not holding my breath), and it APPEARS to have the kind of time-span on which Deep Time, and thus Evolution, can operate.