I love science, but there’s a problem that a lot of scientists would rather base their research off an idea that may not be right (and will just assume it’s right) and will strongly and loudly oppose new ideas that may undo all of their research. Have you ever heard of Aquatic Ape Theory? There’s plenty of evidence to back it, but many scientists won’t even acknowledge it.
Aquatic Ape HYPOTHESIS. Not theory, hypothesis if you know anything about science you’d know the difference.
Additionally why would they hold back this hypothesis if there was significant evidence? It would do nothing to the theory of evolution just change the projections of how we evolved slightly. As it stands though the fossil records and the DNA evidence still points towards common ancestry with Orangatangs and Apes. Some superficial traits are not enough to stand on presently, naturally proponents of the hypthesis will continue to reasrch and present their findings, but they simply don’t have enough evidence to make it a theory.
This is because there is no evidence for it. You give an example of the very thing you think scientists shouldn’t do.
Religion vs science is a bogus argument. Basically all you you are saying with a site like this is that you cannot see the strength of one argument and the weakness of the other. Religion offers insight into the human condition thru stories and parables etc. Science offers insight into the structure of nature and offers others a chance to observe a build upon results. Religion says generosity and love are the pinnacle of being human. Science says trust but verify.
We have psychology for understanding the human condition and it really does a better job. Not to mention following that logic any collection of stories with a nice moral will suffice. Hell most collections of fables I could pull up for you are less violent and don’t encourage closeminded judgementalism too.
What else does religion have to offer?
religion doesn’t do anything that cannot be done through secular means and the primary goal of religion is to explain what isn’t explained. Religion also does not say generosity and love are the pinnacle of being human, some religions have that aspect, yet religion is not required for that opinion at all.
There are quite a number of aspects of life and of the cosmos science cannot explain, which is why theories are developed. There is also a great deal religion cannot back up (I personally despise religion, but let’s be realistic here). Why don’t we just find a way to amalgamate the two and stop debating? In the end we’re all the same, and we won’t find out the truth either way until then.
It’s not ignorance that scientists are not content with it’s the illusion of knowledge. Scientists actually have to be comfortable with ignorance