671 replies to this topic

[luv2increase]

http://abcnews.go.co...=3148940&page=1


Didn't know if anyone knows about his or not. Should be good. I think you can watch it off the site as well.

[Live Forever]

Oh I saw something about that the other day and was thinking I would want to watch it. Thanks for the reminder. )

It appears that most of the debate (perhaps all?) is available on abc.com. Here is the search I did (might be an easier way to get to it):
http://abcnews.go.co...to=9&type=video
(Note: the segments seem to be chopped up into the between commercial break segments, so you have to watch each individually)


Edit: It appears you can go to the link luv2increase gave in the first post and the videos are in the upper righthand side.

Edited by Live Forever, 10 May 2007 - 04:10 AM.

[Live Forever]

The two people on the Christian side (or the "God" side as it were) are the two people from the "banana video":
http://www.imminst.o...=pid&pid=161672

I am sure they will once again be wowing us with their superior intellect. )

[DJS]

It would be funny if the atheists brought some asparagus, brazil nuts and pineapples with them and asked how God designed those for our convenience. [lol]

[Live Forever]

It would be funny if the atheists brought some asparagus, brazil nuts and pineapples with them and asked how God designed those for our convenience.  [lol]

Well, I am about halfway through the second segment (watching it on abc.com during commercial breaks in Lost) and no mentions of a banana yet, although he does like his props. He has used a coke can and a painting so far. (in an attempt to show something that is designed must have a designer)

[DJS]

I haven't watch the video yet, but the opposing side should just flip it around and say, "yes, it is very clear that life on this planet had a designer -- and that designer was the process of evolution. Now let's get into the details of how evolution does it designing. After we're done with our detailed explanation, your side can give its account of how the design process occurred." [sfty]

[Live Forever]

Wow, I really hope they play the little sit down discussion at the end on tv. Kirk Cameron and the other dude on the Christian side really get flustered near the end of one segment and can't think of any responses to the questions. I was really surprised how much they froze up.

[Live Forever]

It appears they just gave the overview on Nightline. (although they showed some more stuff that isn't online) Pretty much the whole debate is on the website though.


Does anyone have a problem with me moving this thread to the Religion forum?

[luv2increase]

I don't understand how something can be made out of nothing. How can a bunch of cells come together and create an eye for vision? Did the first single celled organisms have a board meaning and say to each other that they need to come together and manifest a way to see??? Let's be realistic here. There is such thing as survival of the fittest, but there had to be the fittest there first for there to be something survived from it right? Also, something had to create that something that was there first to be taken out of and furthered along.

Also, the statement about the brazil nut etc.. I don't believe everything on this earth was made for only us--->directly. There is something called a food chain. "Some" things in nature are put there to feed the lower ends of the spectrum of the food chain that ultimately benefit us. This is done--->indirectly.

How come all the planets in our solar system aren't composed of all the elements that we have here on earth? Everything here is just perfect for life and its existence. For this to come about is too hard for me to fathom as just a mere coincidence of chance.

This is interesting stuff. I'm not too sure that Cameron and the other guy are the best candidates to be doing this. It seems they have gotten in a little over their heads. Although, I do believe their point of view of God, Hell, and Heaven. I do not agree with them about there being no such thing as evolution. I believe evolution to a certain extent. I don't believe that humans were derived from it though.

The best defense for the Christian, which is also my faith and/or belief, is the question of how a single organism can "create" and "modify" itself in coming together to create a "multi" celled organism. I've been studying the science field for 3 years now in college and can't see how any evidence as to this being remotely possible. Something had to, and has, "created" a multi-celled organism, and it surely wasn't from a single-celled organism.

Some things are not designed and supposed to be known amongst us humans. Some things are brains aren't supposed to comprehend. A good example of this is eternity. Another, the biggest, is the presence of an entity, God, of having no beginning and no end. Does any other living creature on earth understand 1,000,000th of what we as humans understand? No. Is it so hard to believe that since we understand so much, that there is not supposed more advanced than us that understands "and" comprehends 1,000,000 times more information than what we understand now? Yes.

[mike250]

I don't understand how something can be made out of nothing.  How can a bunch of cells come together and create an eye for vision?  Did the first single celled organisms have a board meaning and say to each other that they need to come together and manifest a way to see???  Let's be realistic here.  There is such thing as survival of the fittest, but there had to be the fittest there first for there to be something survived from it right?  Also, something had to create that something that was there first to be taken out of and furthered along. 

Also, the statement about the brazil nut etc..  I don't believe everything on this earth was made for only us--->directly.  There is something called a food chain.  "Some" things in nature are put there to feed the lower ends of the spectrum of the food chain that ultimately benefit us.  This is done--->indirectly. 

How come all the planets in our solar system aren't composed of all the elements that we have here on earth?  Everything here is just perfect for life and its existence.  For this to come about is too hard for me to fathom as just a mere coincidence of chance.

This is interesting stuff.  I'm not too sure that Cameron and the other guy are the best candidates to be doing this.  It seems they have gotten in a little over their heads.  Although, I do believe their point of view of God, Hell, and Heaven.  I do not agree with them about there being no such thing as evolution.  I believe evolution to a certain extent.  I don't believe that humans were derived from it though. 

The best defense for the Christian, which is also my faith and/or belief, is the question of how a single organism can "create" and "modify" itself in coming together to create a "multi" celled organism.  I've been studying the science field for 3 years now in college and can't see how any evidence as to this being remotely possible.  Something had to, and has, "created" a multi-celled organism, and it surely wasn't from a single-celled organism.

Some things are not designed and supposed to be known amongst us humans.  Some things are brains aren't supposed to comprehend.  A good example of this is eternity.  Another, the biggest, is the presence of an entity, God, of having no beginning and no end.  Does any other living creature on earth understand 1,000,000th of what we as humans understand?  No.  Is it so hard to believe that since we understand so much, that there is not supposed more advanced than us that understands "and" comprehends 1,000,000 times more information than what we understand now?  Yes.

Fittest would probably be a relative term here. I don't think that evolution via natural selection would necessarily imply survival of the fittest. Reproduction is not just survival and I think it is more about an organism being slightly better off than its competitors in its specific environment.

[DJS]

How can a bunch of cells come together and create an eye for vision?

Evolution of the Eye

Let's be realistic here.  There is such thing as survival of the fittest, but there had to be the fittest there first for there to be something survived from it right?  Also, something had to create that something that was there first to be taken out of and furthered along.

See this wiki article:

Origin of Life

And read these books:

The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language

Darwin's Dangerous Idea

How come all the planets in our solar system aren't composed of all the elements that we have here on earth?  Everything here is just perfect for life and its existence.  For this to come about is too hard for me to fathom as just a mere coincidence of chance.

Anthropic Principle

The best defense for the Christian, which is also my faith and/or belief, is the question of how a single organism can "create" and "modify" itself in coming together to create a "multi" celled organism.

Symbiosis

Endosymbiotic Theory

I've been studying the science field for 3 years now in college and can't see how any evidence as to this being remotely possible.

You obviously haven't been looking hard enough.

[Live Forever]

Why do creationists always give the eye as an example? I have seen the proof for the eye lots of different places at lots of different times. You would think it would be better to mix it up and keep evolutionists guessing instead of using the same example over and over after it is refuted.

[JohnDoe1234]

Hey, the RRS is doing a very nice job, and yeah... I was very surprised that Kirk and his banana-lovin' buddy didn't have anything to say in that scene where they froze up.

The best defense for the Christian, which is also my faith and/or belief, is the question of how a single organism can "create" and "modify" itself in coming together to create a "multi" celled organism. I've been studying the science field for 3 years now in college and can't see how any evidence as to this being remotely possible. Something had to, and has, "created" a multi-celled organism, and it surely wasn't from a single-celled organism.

Well, this is where the beauty of science comes in, just because you don't understand a theory that doesn't mean you dismiss it, you keep trying to figure it out, if all of our early scientists simply defaulted to mysticism and magic for explaining things when it got a little hard to comprehend (as you have)... we wouldn't have gotten anywhere...

The people who devote their lives to learning, understanding, and putting the big picture together are the ones who change the world for the better, not the ones who blindly assume what seems easy. Even though I am still fascinated by the very same question as you (pertaining to the origin of life), I will never revert to old-world thinking. Just keep reading, and trying to figure things out...

EDIT: Yeah Nate... I have also grown very tiresome of the eye-argument [mellow]

[mike250]

the Endosymbiotic theory is quite a fascinating theory. we studied it back in high school Biology. Of course sitting the actual exam was very much less exciting and I ended up getting a B-.

[DJS]

Joseph: Yeah Nate... I have also grown very tiresome of the eye-argument

I've grown tired of arguing evolution in its entirety. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy refining my understanding of evolutionary theory, but I view it as a waste of my time to have to go back to the basics, spoon feeding severely biased and lazy cognitions their vegetables when they don't want to eat them anyway.

[Aegist]

Wow. Those poor christians are so out of their depth it is embarrasing.

[Aegist]

I've grown tired of arguing evolution in its entirety.  Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy refining my understanding of evolutionary theory, but I view it as a waste of my time to have to go back to the basics, spoon feeding severely biased and lazy cognitions their vegetables when they don't want to eat them anyway.

100% with you Don. it was fun for a while, but after the 50th person giving me the same damn argument, Half an eye, where did the sexes come from? where are the intermediate fossils....etc

NEVER anything new. it is startling. Surely one of them would ask a decent question just out of probability of accidently asking something new... but no, it is clear they all get the same questions, from the same sources, and never bother looking to see the validity of it. And they all think they are being novel! They think they are going to convert you with the same arguments that have been around for over 100 years!!!!! Problmes that DARWIN came up with as problems which he either solved himself, or admitted were problems that needed to be overcome, and then were subsequently overcome.

meh, over it all.

[Live Forever]

Wow. Those poor christians are so out of their depth it is embarrasing.

They really were heavily outgunned. On the segment that aired on the tv, they showed Kirk and Mr. Banana after the show, and they both looked like the wind had been taken out of their sails and defeated. (as opposed to before the debate where they were very cheery and ready to go) Kirk said he had never seen so many "angry atheists" in one place before, (referring to the audience cheering for the atheists I suppose) and Mr. Banana mumbled something about how Kirk was brave for doing this and that he was giving up his Hollywood status by doing this. (as if he has been a big Hollywood player since Growing Pains)

[Live Forever]

Here is some video shot by the Rational Response Squad (with text that is a bit hard to read at some parts):


About 6 minutes in is when they have their "freeze up" moment, and you can hear the guy operating the camera start to laugh.

[DJS]

Can I also just get this off my chest; Kelly is so freakin hot. An atheist and a redhead, gggrrrrr.... [sfty]

[Live Forever]

Can I also just get this off my chest; Kelly is so freakin hot.  An atheist and a redhead, gggrrrrr.... [sfty]

I had the same thoughts. )

Unfortunately, 1) she is not a natural redhead, and 2) she is taken. (not that I thought I had a chance, but still)

[JohnDoe1234]

Can I also just get this off my chest; Kelly is so freakin hot.  An atheist and a redhead, gggrrrrr....

I had the same thoughts.

Agreed.

[luv2increase]

The eye thing is a good one. It is the source of probably the most important of our senses. The eye theory link I was sent to was very weak. One scientist estimated it took 360 some thousand years to come about. How was this determined LOL. The whole thing is hogwash. The idea of a pigment turning into an eye is crazy. I don't know how someone with half a brain good believe this.

Someone said something about me not looking hard enough. It is more so of filtering out the garbage that is taught as gospel within the university curriculum when it regards to evolution "theory". That meaning of this word is not emphasized enough by our professors. Evolution is, after all, a theory. It has not been proven. It has only had different theories thrown at is in attempts to support it. Where does this get us, with more theories. The whole subject is surrounded with so many theories that sound sooo intelligent, the student has nothing to do but take it as gospel. This, along with having to memorize, can really alter one's opinions about this topic. I feel sorry about people who cannot handle this overwhelming influx of scientific propaganda that is hurled at them constantly.

These scientists believe that since they have the title, they can say anything they want. Nothing at all sounds remotely sound for the eye theory thing. The other theories about space etc.. are just theories brought about by people like you and me.

Don't take "man's" theories as gospel, take the Word of God as gospel.

Many events of the Bible has been proven by scientists. None have yet to be disproved. No evolutionary scientific theories have been proven and never will be. God has not been disproved.

Why don't someone throw something at me that has some scientific "fact" attached to it. Man will never stop attempting to disprove the existence of a God. I just wish they would at least attempt it in another way other than writing text on a paper and saying "hey that 'sounds' good. 'I' bet this caused this and that etc... because of this and that".

What ever happened with some of you guys wanted to see scientific experimentation to back up everything you will accept into your belief system. There has yet to be any scientific experiments proving evolution, yet you take it into your belief pool just as if it had been scientifically proven. When you do this, you are believing by 'faith'. The only downside is that you are putting your 'faith' into the wrong entity. You are putting your faith into a bunch of mere humans who have been educated by other humans etc... whereas a Christian puts their faith in the Bible who was authored by our Creator, God. Let's see here.... Faith in man or faith in God in which man was created??? This isn't a tough decision and shouldn't be.

When you study biology enough, you will see how extremely complicated everything in our world as we know it, is. It is so complicated where "time" cannot have created it. What is "time"? Is time smart? Does time have a brain? Time is just that, time. Evolutionary theorists believe that time is the creator of everything, is given enough of it. You will understand, especially at the microscopic level, that time just doesn't cut it. It never has and never will. When you see something so complicated like the make-up of a human cell, it is obvious that the designer was intelligent, wayy more intelligent than anyone on earth.


edit: Kelly is hot, yet her voice is quite annoying!

Edited by luv2increase, 10 May 2007 - 05:20 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

We use evolution as an engineering tool. Telling us it doesn't exist is every bit as insane as telling a carpenter his hammer doesn't exist.

[Live Forever]

luv2increase, you are obviously opposed to this idea on philosophical grounds. It appears that it doesn't matter how much proof that is shown to you, you will always find a way to discount it. That is fine to believe what you do, but you have to understand that you are not thinking rationally. Over 99% of all scientists agree (and virtually 100% of scientists who study it directly; evolutionary biologists and such) that evolution is how the world works, and how we came about. There is as much proof for it as the "theory" of gravity. (or any of a number of other "theories") To say you don't "believe" in evolution is a non sequitur.

[lunarsolarpower]

Why don't someone throw something at me that has some scientific "fact" attached to it. 

I doubt that you care, but I'm curious what you would say about this piece of evidence, now more than 20 years old:

Evolution of alu family repeats since the divergence of human and chimpanzee

FYI: The Alu sequence is a "jumping gene" that makes up a huge amount of the human genome. Alu sequences are about 300 base pairs long. There are over one million Alu sequences interspersed throughout the human genome, and it is estimated that about 10% of the mass of the human genome consists of Alu sequences.

Now, if you are proposing an "intelligent design" basis as the origin of separate source code (chromosomal DNA) for Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes, why would the Alu sequence occur in those exact same 14 places in both genomes? I have yet to find a satisfactory answer.

Edited by lunarsolarpower, 10 May 2007 - 07:40 PM.

[Live Forever]

Note, if you can't get the abc.com Nightline video to play, most of it is also available other places. For instance, here it is with most (all?) of the segments on bsalert.com:
http://www.bsalert.c...=2&as=1807&dt=1

[william7]

Society's Dramatic Shift

Why has evolution become so widely accepted, and why has the Bible come to be viewed with such hostility? What has changed? In this booklet we examine the foundational premises of evolution. We consider the evidence evolutionists cite to support the theory. Perhaps most important, we look at the scientific facts evolutionists don't discuss in public—for reasons that will become clear. You can know whether evolution is true. We hope you'll examine the evidence carefully. What you believe does matter.
Why has evolution become so widely accepted, and why has the Bible come to be viewed with such hostility? What has changed?

Only a few generations ago laws prevented the teaching of the theory of evolution in some communities and regions in the United States. The Bible was commonly accepted as true and a reliable account of our origins. But now almost the opposite is true. The Bible is banned from classrooms in American schools, and serious discussion of the biblical view of the creation of our universe—and our human origins—is forbidden. At the same time, criticism of the theory of evolution is at times ruthlessly suppressed in academic and scientific circles.

Certainly not all scientists agree that no Creator exists and that we as human beings are the product of random chance. In 1972 the California State Board of Education asked NASA director Wernher von Braun, who has been called the father of the American space program, for his thoughts on the origin of the universe, life and the human race. Here's how he responded: "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design . . .

"And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based . . .

"To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

"Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine intent.

They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? . . .

"What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him?" (Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, 1997, pp. 159-160).

Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it true? Curiously enough, our existence as humans is one of the best arguments against it. According to evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from generation to generation. Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.

If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

Let's take it a step further. If humans are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?

Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet, among humans, an infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth.

A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.

If evolution is true, and humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?

Regrettably, such obvious flaws in the theory are too often overlooked.

Even Charles Darwin, whose theories about evolution took the world by storm, had second thoughts. In his later years he reflected on what he had started: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them" (William Federer, America's God and Country, 1996, p. 199, emphasis added).

Now, almost a century and a half after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, we can see where his thinking has led. In Europe in particular, belief in a personal God has plummeted. In the United States, court decisions have interpreted constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion as freedom from religion—effectively banning public expression of religious beliefs and denying the country's rich religious heritage.

Meanwhile, the world languishes in the sorrow and suffering resulting from rejecting absolute moral standards. With no absolute standards, we have no reason to care what happens to our fellowman. We should seek only our personal gain regardless of the cost to others—acting exactly as evolutionary theory says we should.

Could man create a religion with no god? The widespread acceptance of evolution shows that we have done just that. The Bible teaches us that God created man. Evolution teaches us that man created God.

If God created man we have no right to ignore Him. If man created God we can easily ignore Him. What man has made he can do away with. Thus we are free to act as though God doesn't exist, free to dismiss the Bible, free to determine for ourselves what is right and wrong and how we will choose to live.

Which is the myth, God or evolution? Louis Bounoure, director of France's Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, stated: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" (Federer, p. 61).

Professor Bounoure, though right about evolution, was wrong about one thing. Rather than being useless, evolution is quite useful if one wants to reject the idea of God.

In this booklet we examine the foundational premises of evolution. We consider the evidence evolutionists cite to support the theory. Perhaps most important, we look at the scientific facts evolutionists don't discuss in public—for reasons that will become clear.

You can know whether evolution is true. We hope you'll examine the evidence carefully. What you believe does matter.

http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/

This is the first chapter of the booklet Creation or Evolution— Does It Really Matter What You Believe?I challenge you evolution believers to read the full booklet and then tell me that the authors haven't made a plausible argument for creation and against blind evolution without a creator behind the process. Even Wernher von Braun, mentioned above, recognized the necessity of a designer behind creation and the improbability of a random chance development of the universe and life. You certainly can't accuse him of having an irrational or unscientific mind can you? And what about the other notable scientists and educated persons who support creation and deny evolution?

I didn't watch the full video of the debate that started this thread. I believe competitive debates of this nature, made for television and playing to an audience, prove verry little. The person(s) who sound or look the best win. Judging by appearances can be misleading. People need to seriously study and give deep thought - even questioning hidden biases - of a matter in order to arrive at the truth. Taking a good, honest look at both sides of an argument can be very enlightening at times.

[JohnDoe1234]

I believe competitive debates of this nature, made for television and playing to an audience, prove verry little. The person(s) who sound or look the best win. Judging by appearances can be misleading. People need to seriously study and give deep thought - even questioning hidden biases - of a matter in order to arrive at the truth. Taking a good, honest look at both sides of an argument can be very enlightening at times.

This is very true, I will admit that when I see Kirk and his friend slip up, I feel a little joy, but when I see Kelly or Brian slip up or use a slightly off word, it hurts... people look very closely at how the speaker conducts his or herself, and the only reason why debates like these are needed is to help instill in the public's mind that there is an opposition to the most widely held assumption humanity has ever succumbed to. It keeps it going in their minds, and prevents them from slipping into their old, apathetic habits.

Evolution is, after all, a theory. It has not been proven

Just as elrond mentioned, the process of Evolution has been proven to work, it works 100% as advertised, we have proven this with computer simulations, if you do not believe me... take a quick tutorial in C\C++ and write yourself a simple little program guided by evolutionary rules written in your text book and run it (as I did)... you will soon realize that this process is completely valid, there is no doubting it once you have seen it in action...

The only thing that warrants doubt is its role in human (or even just generally-biological development), even though there are thousands of fossils, mountains of DNA evidence, and loads behavioral similarities between certain animals, there is no computer simulation yet powerful enough to display this as 100% valid, and since we cannot travel back in time to see for ourselves, we just need to hang in a while longer for computer simulations that approach the complexity of our genetic evolution. (at this point will you bury your superstitious old-world beliefs?)

Until you agree to set aside the fables, ancient verses, and superstitions you picked up via Christianity, it is hard for us to take you seriously, and it will continue to blur your view of reality, quit thinking things are ridiculous just because you feel so... get up and think this stuff through yourself.

Also, that bit about people just accepting things that were told to them by scientists and professors because they were "probably smarter than them"... no, people.... real scientists in training, do not do this, this is the sort of decayed and weak thought process you will observe every day in churches, mosques and holy sites the world over... if this is how you think... I feel very sorry for you, and I cannot imagine myself being in such a position.

Sure, there are things that you just have to accept because you do not understand them (yet), but if you plan on holding on to the knowledge, you must make it a priority to find a way to verify it. Even though I have never observed a photon striking metal and sending electrons "flying" I still accept this because my teacher told me so, as well as the fact that I know solar panels actually work

So, quit saying things that can easily be shot down with about 5 and a half seconds of relatively deep thought.

[Live Forever]

Also, that bit about people just accepting things that were told to them by scientists and professors because they were "probably smarter than them"... no, people.... real scientists in training, do not do this, this is the sort of decayed and weak thought process you will observe every day in churches, mosques and holy sites the world over.

This is a very profound statement. Science is continually questioning itself, and revising itself to the best possible evidence available. It is completely self correcting, and there is nothing "dogmatic" about it. (in fact, that is one way it is criticized sometimes by fundamentalists; that it changes all the time so how can you be 100% certain of it?; The answer of course being that it is the best model we have, and while not perfect, it is much better than anything else out there.) While religion does change some over time, mostly religion is dogmatic and unmovable. The practitioners are told something, and expected to take it as Truth (with a capital "T"). There is no self correcting feature for when new evidence is found.

Now that isn't to say over time they don't adapt, but they are the last in society to change. (world is flat, people used to think diseases were punishments from God, used to believe in astrology, used to think black people were inferior, used to think Earth was the center of the universe, etc. etc., until science proved otherwise, and then after much argument for many years, they finally accept what science says) In other words, science is self correcting, and always represents what we know as a species at any one point, while religion holds steadfast to dogmatic teachings and old ideas till the bitter end.