Because I’m a masochist, I occasionally check sites like FSTDT and Ray Comfort’s blog, sometimes just to look for stuff to write about. Well today I came across this blog entry where Ray questions scientists’ ability to know the age of the earth. It hurt my brain.

Just over one hundred years ago, [scientists] thought that it was about 100 million years old. Soon after, they changed their minds and came to the confident belief that the correct number was 500 million years. [etc.] Of course, now they think that it may be 4.55 billion, give or take a billion years.

I’m sure that contemporary scientists think they have the right number this time, until they change their minds again when more data comes along … and, of course, none of the “faithful” will question it.

So because scientific understanding has changed in the past century, scientists can’t be trusted? This represents an extremely flawed few of science. Of course scientific understanding changes; someones individual understanding changes many many times about pretty much everything, just in the course of his lifetime; it stands to reason that scientific understanding in its many fields, with its thousands of scientists working and researching daily, should develop much faster. That religion (supposedly) doesn’t change is not something that should be praised, but condemned. Our understanding and knowledge should change from people 2000 years ago. But of course religion actually does change, a lot, even from person-to-person, as was discussed in this entry. There’s also the distasteful misconception of people who actually accept conclusions based on good science as the “faithful,” implying that we have no reason to believe what we do. That statement is too blatantly false to even warrant refuting.

Another common misunderstanding which makes me grate my teeth in agony is the horrible misuse of the word “theory” when it comes to science. This just in: a scientific theory is NOT a theory in the laymen sense, and has a completely different standard. A scientific theory is a falsifiable explanation of an observable phenomenon which is supported by piles and piles of evidence and research. That definition includes four standards (falsifiable, explanatory power, observable, supporting evidence) that crap like Intelligent Design doesn’t come close to meeting, but actual scientific theories like, say, the theory of evolution, meets conclusively.

Now, a misunderstanding of biology and scientific terms is forgiveable, and is even expected for many people. That’s fine; not everyone goes to college science classes and public high schools are often not the best place to learn about evolution (or anything else), at least not in the United States. However, I have explained this and witnessed it explained thoroughly many times to many different creationists, and I have yet to see one accept any of it. I’m sure some have, but I have yet to see it, even when presented with all simple explanations. That is not forgiveable.

My only explanation for the consistency of this is that scientific research promotes basing conclusions only on evidence, which requires constant analyzation of facts and even change. Contrary to that, religion often promotes stagnation of knowledge: don’t learn, accept; don’t question, believe. At least where scientific/human understanding is concerned. Science questions the Bible’s (and therefore God’s) view of the world, and that can’t be allowed. If what we see is all there is, then what they have based their entire worldview on is a lie. I can understand how that is difficult to accept, but what I can’t understand is the complete refusal by many creationists to even consider the possibility, despite all of the evidence pointing in one direction.

I think the most disturbing aspect of religious nutjobs is the willful ignorance they espouse and even promote.