Exactly especially when no evidence points to that.

Now I agree with you completely. And I don't think it's a Christian-non-Christian thing. I find it to be an educated-non-educated thing. God often fills the gap for the religious people, but the non-religious non-educated still fill gaps with whatever they can. And I think we're sort of supposed to. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to process our world or interact with it.

I know a guy who is terribly racist who have never met a person of a different race that they didn't genuinely like. It's all those "others" that are evil. It's a worldview that he developed in order to process the racial tensions of the South (for non-Americans, Tennessee was a very violent place in the 50s and 60s and 70s between blacks and whites, even between those who weren't racist -- people ran people off the road and shot each other with far more frequency than you'd ever believe by reading a text book). Black=evil for him as a survival mechanism. He filled a gap of knowledge (who is going to hurt him, who won't) with an idol (racism) which he could rely upon.

Over the history of man, there have been powers that tried to fill gaps. Galileo tried to say otherwise. He wasn't an atheist (there is historical debate as to what he believed and what he was coerced to believe), he just said what he saw. But those fights were more about power, not religion or truth or science.

I know few Christians who hate science. And sometimes things we stick God in are explainable. And sometimes we still say God's in there nonetheless. And sometimes we say, "Oh, okay. I suppose there's a natural influence here."

To a Christian, we see God in everything and we don't really care too much if current observations get in the way of our understanding of the world so long as something is crystal clear in the Bible. For instance, 100 years ago, people laughed at the book of Ezekiel because there is a prophecy that says that Israel would be attacked by Persia and a slew of other countries, but Israel wouldn't have it's real borders. It would have a chunk missing by the sea and they wouldn't have all of Jerusalem or a temple.

People laughed because A) Israel didn't exist any more, would never exist any more and the battle never happened. B) The borders described never occurred throughout history. C) An important sacrificial animal needed if they had the temple was extinct (the red heifer)

And now Christians anxiously await this battle (called The Battle of Gog and Magog, coincidentally) because Israel has a nation, its borders are not the originals, it's missing a chunk by the sea, it doesn't have the temple mount or half of Jerusalem and Persia (Iran) and every other nation mentioned (Al Qaeda strongholds) are threatening war against Israel. The book talks about how the battle will end and where it will take place. It says that Israel will gets its borders back and they'll have a temple and resume sacrifices. And that it will result in the whole world getting a big boost of faith in God. And the temple is already built in modular form, ready to be mounted as soon as they own the Temple Mount. And the red heifer wasn't extinct. Thanks to DNA analysis, they found that it was just bred into some other cattle and they were able to breed it back out about a decade ago.

Christians feel like these types of occurrences happen regularly. The world tries to explain them away, but they seem legit. So many become jaded to anything that indicates that their Bible is inaccurate in any way.

That said, keep observing. Keep studying evolution. If there's truth there, then a Christian will know that it is of God. Perhaps one day, if evolution is truly proved out (I think there are strong evidences for macroevolution, but I'm still not convinced [note: I was once convinced, became unconvinced around age 18 or 19 -- a Christian as a evolution believer and non-evolution-believer from age 13) then people will rethink or reevaluate. Most people who believe in evolution choose to leave their faith (I saw a stat once but I'm nowhere near committed enough to look it up right now), but not all.

Obviously, this topic is thick. Each paragraph could be expounded into its own book or library row from any writer. These things have been talked about ad nauseam 1000 years ago, let alone the past millennium's worth of work. But it's always reassuring to see that at least some folks are looking at data, making conclusions and building worldviews as a thinking citizen of the world. And, as always, I'd caution against and anti-religious or anti-anything worldview. When we choose to believe that our beliefs our so strong that others' are null and void, we tend to discredit not only a person's views, but their life. And without being guided by love for our common man, we can end up in scary, hateful places.

Everyone stop what you're doing and watch Star Trek: The Next Generation's "Who Watches the Watchers?"

It has all the answers.

Is that the one with the Klingon satan? I love that one if it is.

I'm fairly sure most of those answers were just nicked from somewhere else :-P
IIRC it's the one where the primitive culture worships cpt. Picard, with the underlaying message of 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'

I forgotten all about that episode. I should watch it again.

Best part is Picard ranting about how religion is primitive superstition. I feel like that episode would be a big deal if aired today, in our sensitive times.

Yup :-P Then again, Star Trek did a lot of 'sensitive topics'...

I think you have that confused with Dianetics. :D

I worship Captain Picard as a god too.

Snagged, thank you, +1 and.

Allahu fuckbar!

I wonder about that one.

Who? Soyeong? Me too.

Your claim part - not really anything to with Soyeongs opinion though.

Science often examines things that there is no clear evidence beforehand - rather just idea or gut feelings of. The possibility of.

Anyways, what do you mean by "evidence"? We have lots of mathematics about what happens inside the blackholes for example, but no ones has been inside there to see how right or wrong they are. Its all hypothesis in the end.

Also throughout the history alot of evidence of just about, well everything is discovered to be either totally wrong or just made up in the first place. Just as times change, so do facts.

btw i am totally pro-science, its just that there really is no such thing as 100% certain proof. Heck, scientists dont even really agree on the what our reality is made out of.