Evolution?

[mrs.b]

As to the original question: I don't know.

As to the evolved debate...

Because nobody was there, both need to be taken by faith.

That statement speaks to me on all sorts of levels. There is no definitive proof that God (or Allah, or any other diety) absolutely, positively, with no uncertainty remaining, created Heaven and Earth. Similarly, there is no absolute and definitive proof that God does not and never did exist, and Big Bang followed by evolution and all the other scientific theories came into being without direction. Both require a leap of faith to some degree.

Do you accept that it's possible for police to solve crimes they didn't witness, or do you reject the entire idea as having to be accepted on faith?

I believe police (and scientists) do their best and get it right most of the time. I've also seen ample stories of the wrong person being imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. Just like there are scientific theories held true for long periods of time, but as our ability to observe, measure, calculate, and deduce has advanced, so too must our assumptions. See Spontaneous Generation as just one example.

Sometimes, science gets it wrong even though all the evidence at the moment demonstrates truth. Theories are held true so long as they cannot be proven untrue. Sometimes, technology simply has not yet advanced enough to make the necessary observations to highlight the fallacy. Also, there is always a chance for miscalculation because we're all human and prone to mistakes, whether from ignorance or arrogance.

That goes for both arguments, for and against religion in all its forms.

Also, science and religion fit nicely together absent the presumption of certainty. I'm sure the ant in my yard feels certain he's seen the whole world.

Cook, you're my hero.

Ah, but that is the problem of it...religion purports certainty. By contrast, the scientific community thrives on uncertainty. In religion, if you say "god did it" then you have no reason to seek the truth any further. In science, the idea is to change the phrase from "we don't know" to "we know."

Correction: Some individuals who claim to be religious purport certainty, in that they claim a complete and total understanding of all that God is and can do, and function as if our finite understanding can define Him. Plenty more realize our understanding is infinitesimal of the world and universe around us, and even smaller in comparison to a being that could create it all. The same can be said for scientists; there are plenty that readily admit that their understanding is limited due to limited ability to observe, measure, and so forth. But, there are more than a few that will claim they know something as absolute fact, whether through arrogance or not having seen otherwise. Both brands of certainty muddy our perceptions. Judging religion based upon vocal zealots is a mistake, just like disregarding science and all it offers because some people have certain ideas that might feel disagreeable is a mistake.