The Creation vs Evolution debate thread...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I agree; and that includes anything that is proposed as science, no matter what the title given to it. If it isn't examined and reexamined from every angle, it ain't science!

Science asks: could it be true what the temporary theory so far says?

Religion asks: why is it true what the unerring dogma says?

That describes pretty well evolutionists' and creationists' approach as well.

[Shearwater]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Science asks: could it be true what the temporary theory so far says?

Religion asks: why is it true what the unerring dogma says?

That describes pretty well evolutionists' and creationists' approach as well.

I guess there's a bit more to it than that
Science may ask for truth as , but it's rather concerned with providing the most probable explanation of the (material) world based on evidence using traceable methods. It acquires data and draws conlcusions, but data as such can always be only a fragment of 'truth', which as such isn't a scientific, but rather a philosophical (or, more precisely, epistemological) concept.
Dogma isn't derived from religion as such, it's rather a binding interpretation of a given subject (e.g. in Christian religion a binding interpretation of the Bible). It implies the presence of at least some sort of clerical hierarchy that can both provide such an interpretation and see to its enforcement, and hierarchy in that sense doesn't necessarily exist in all religions (and not in all parts of Christendom).