# Assuming evolution is discovered to be junk science, would you believe in God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2011, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194 "2011-03-28T00:39:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/161 "2011-03-31T19:14:03Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > You left out an important piece. My reply about the data that God exists was in response to your question:Nothing in your question mentioned how the universe was created. It did, but not directly. The God of Abrahamic religions is the God who said “Let there be light” Who created heaven and earth and created Man in His image. If the being in question did not do those things, I hardly think you could call it God. > [@](#): > > Perhaps if “someone” misunderstands it, but what if it’s someone that you already respect and admire, and that person gives you a detailed explanation for believing that Sherlock Holmes is real? What if many people say that Holmes is real? And what if you were already considering the possibility that he was real? In simple terms, you don’t believe that Holmes is real because there is too much contradictory evidence. But you could probably concoct some scenario under which the statement “Sherlock Holmes is real” is true. I can concoct such a scenario. However, that scenario does not rely whatsoever on readers of Doyle’s work believing it to be true. Evidence that he existed must be found outside the influence of Doyle’s writings. You don’t poll people about whether or not broccoli cures cancer, and call it data supporting the idea that it cures cancer. > [@](#): > > BTW, do you consider courtroom testimony to be data? Sure, it’s data about what those people believe to be true. Many of those people are intimately involved in the issue, so their thoughts are relevant. Others are subject matter experts, their thoughts are relevant too. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/162 "2011-03-31T19:52:16Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > Okay, on what important things do you think we disagree? What science is. What scientific evidence is. What the scientific method is. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/163 "2011-03-31T19:54:41Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > It did, but not directly. The God of Abrahamic religions is the God who said “Let there be light” Who created heaven and earth and created Man in His image. If the being in question did not do those things, I hardly think you could call it God. That’s how you justify omitting your question when you summarized our discussion? :dubious: If you can’t see the flaw in your logic (and the flaws in your other arguments) then there’s no point in responding to your posts. ---
**Author:** ![typoink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@typoink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/typoink)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/164 "2011-03-31T19:56:26Z")
> [@Trans Fat Og](#): > > Sure, creativity and imagination lead to breakthroughs. But it’s the experimentation and peer review that make the difference in science. The general contention Feyerabend and, uh, the fella who wrote _The Copernican Revolution_ would make is that science is good because it helps establish veracity and reliability, but that “proper science” isn’t usually operating on the cutting edge of fields, doubly so when we’re talking about breakthroughs and revolutions. The point being, I think, that science has a problem if it a) is slow to pay attention to the folks who are making those breakthroughs on the periphery and b) doesn’t actually include a mechanism to promote breakthroughs. There’s a lot of problems with the contention, but there’s some meat there. And Feyerabend, if memory serves, is a fairly entertaining (if aggravating writer). Not espousing the theory, just a rec of something you might be interested in. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/165 "2011-03-31T20:03:56Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What science is. What scientific evidence is. What the scientific method is. Wow, that’s quite a bit. I’m pretty sure that I have a good understanding of all three of those terms. Perhaps you can provide me with a clue of where you think I might be wrong. (I am assuming that, when you say that we disagree, you think that you are right and that I am wrong.) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/166 "2011-03-31T20:05:21Z")
> [@typoink](#): > > The general contention Feyerabend and, uh, the fella who wrote _The Copernican Revolution_ would make is that science is good because it helps establish veracity and reliability, but that “proper science” isn’t usually operating on the cutting edge of fields, doubly so when we’re talking about breakthroughs and revolutions. > > The point being, I think, that science has a problem if it a) is slow to pay attention to the folks who are making those breakthroughs on the periphery and b) doesn’t actually include a mechanism to promote breakthroughs. > > There’s a lot of problems with the contention, but there’s some meat there. And Feyerabend, if memory serves, is a fairly entertaining (if aggravating writer). > > Not espousing the theory, just a rec of something you might be interested in. What does he propose as a mechanism for promoting breakthroughs? Real breakthroughs get Nobel Prizes and publications. However 99% of supposed breakthroughs turn out to be bunk, so I don’t see a problem with forcing the level of evidence to be very high. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/167 "2011-03-31T20:10:13Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > That’s how you justify omitting your question when you summarized our discussion? :dubious: Omitting a single line (that we both know exists) in a summary of a conversation does not require justification. I was recapping the general gist of our back and forth. You claim that my question did not ask about the creation of the universe, when the entire concept of God in the worlds major religions includes his creating the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/168 "2011-03-31T21:07:56Z")
Okay **Cheesesteak** , now it’s my turn to say: Let’s try again. Do you agree with this: There’s data and there’s something else: the relevance, validity and interpretation of the data? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/169 "2011-03-31T21:18:07Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > I’m pretty sure that I have a good understanding of all three of those terms. Perhaps you can provide me with a clue of where you think I might be wrong. (I am assuming that, when you say that we disagree, you think that you are right and that I am wrong.) Your posting style is hard to follow so I’ll admit I’m not sure what it is you believe. But you have said the following: > [@](#): > > I suggest that it is “trust” if someone has some knowledge of the underlying science and of scientific methodology, but it is “faith” if someone has little or no knowledge of current science. I’m pretty sure that most people who say “I accept evolution as being true” (or, more likely, “I believe in evolution”) don’t understand it and can’t explain the basic underlying principles. Their trust is practically blind. > [@](#): > > But, that’s a purely theoretical “if”. I am not going to do the experiments. How can I? I don’t have the necessary expertise. Or are you suggesting that I quit my job and become an expert? And, when it comes to evolution, why stop with experiments on fruit flies? Shouldn’t I also confirm the fossil record, and the science underlying radiometric dating? That’s it: next week I’ll become a biologist, geneticist, geologist, paleontologist, and physicist. Shouldn’t take too long. Maybe I’ll even dust off my copy of On the Origin of Species and read it from cover to cover just like everyone else who accepts evolution. > [@](#): > > But, the “scientific method” is not a specific thing, right? You can’t point to it, touch it. It is not physical. And, do you have a definition of “scientific method” that is universally accepted and that can be (and actually is) applied to every scientific endeavor? > > Anyway, I don’t mean to put you on the spot. We are both on the same side. We know that there is uncertainty in life, that most things are not merely black and white, and that there are various facts and opinions. Often we can agree, and that agreement leads to something fruitful. That’s good. > [@](#): > > What you seem to be missing is that some claims are more credible than others, based on the specifics of the claims, the source of those claims, and on what we already know. What people say can be important and relevant. Or it can be rubbish. > [@](#): > > Want an example? Many people say that they have experienced him directly. > Don’t believe them? Fine. Don’t accept their claims as being valid or persuasive? Okay. But, their testimony is data. So you seem to think that science is about believing what scientists tell you. It’s not. Science is about believing things because you don’t have to rely on what other people tell you. Scientists never ask you to trust what they’re saying. They’ll tell you “Here’s what happened. And here’s how you can verify that it happened.” Scientific evidence is not the same thing as legal evidence or historical evidence. In a legal or historical situation you may be making decisions about who is a credible source. You don’t do that in scientific situations. You don’t believe scientific evidence because you find the scientist trustworthy. You only believe scientific evidence because it’s provable by experiment. And that’s what the scientific method means. It means you have to prove what you saying is true every step of the way. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/170 "2011-03-31T21:19:06Z")
I can agree with that. How about this: Data that is irrelevant, invalid and/or wrongly interpreted is not an acceptable basis for justifying your belief. I’ll be back in the AM. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/171 "2011-03-31T22:39:22Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > Actually, I think the point is that the scientific method is irrelevant to most people’s acceptance of evolution. They don’t know what it is and they don’t care. What they know is that a bunch experts are saying that evolution is true. And it sort of makes sense. Okay, sounds good. So you’re saying it’s just a matter of faith? That I could flip your statement around and say: “Higher criticism and comparative religion are irrelevant to most people’s acceptance of biblical accuracy. They don’t know what it is and they don’t care. What they know is that a priest is saying that the stories are true (and creation occurred). And it sort of makes sense. Okay, sounds good.” But the fundamental difference is that whether or not most believers in evolution know about, care about, or understand the scientific method, the scientific method is still there, and the mountain of evidence accumulated so far is still observable, measurable, testable, repeatable, etc. > [@](#): > > Point is that one experiment, on its own, doesn’t prove or even support evolution. Prove? No, of course not. Provide data for, and in support of? Yes it does. Perhaps only a tiny fragment, but it is still data. > [@](#): > > But, the “scientific method” is not a specific thing, right? You can’t point to it, touch it. It is not physical. And, do you have a definition of “scientific method” that is universally accepted and that can be (and actually is) applied to every scientific endeavor? Unlike God? :dubious: Here I am admitting that if I have “faith” in anything it is in the scientific method, and your response is to point out that it’s not physical or touchable, and not everyone agrees on its exact definition… which would make it just like something that lots of other people have faith in. 😃 The difference of course being that the outputs of the scientific method are physical, touchable, pointable, etc… unlike the outputs of religious faith. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I don’t mean to put you on the spot. It’s an interesting conversation, and if I didn’t want to be put on the spot I should stay out of GD. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/172 "2011-04-01T01:02:47Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > I suggest that it is “trust” if someone has \*some \* knowledge of the underlying science and of scientific methodology, but it is “faith” if someone has little or no knowledge of current science. I’m pretty sure that most people who say “I accept evolution as being true” (or, more likely, “I believe in evolution”) don’t understand it and can’t explain the basic underlying principles. Their trust is practically blind.It is a fine point. I’d say there is something very different between a proposition which can be justified and supported to whatever level one feels they want to go to, and a proposition where the trail of justification stops at belief. (And quite early, also.) There is also falsification. Even creationists have a vague sense of this, since they often say stuff like “evolution can’t be true because a cat never turned into a dog.” Very vague. I’d say that trust and belief as you use them are two markers on a range of provisional acceptance of something. The reason that there actually isn’t any faith in science is that scientists should be ready to reject a proposition they hold once evidence against it is found. While on one hand you might have someone who knowledge of evolution comes from a trip to the museum and looking at the poster of the fish coming out of the water. His belief has to be very provisional. On the other hand, you have the expert. His belief is not 100%. He probably hasn’t read all the journal articles in anything except a tiny specialty. He provisionally accepts their conclusions until something comes up against them. Even when you review a paper, you are provisionally accepting the conclusions, since you don’t redo the experiments yourself. You look for weaknesses, and contradictions, but it might still be wrong. So anyone can move from very provisional acceptance to less provisional acceptance, and there is nothing fundamentally different between the pure amateur and the expert. Not true in religion, where faith is actually fundamental. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/173 "2011-04-01T11:29:05Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > How about this: Data that is irrelevant, invalid and/or wrongly interpreted is not an acceptable basis for justifying your belief. Well, first, I don’t like general principles that include the word “you” or “your”. Are you talking about your beliefs, or mine, or anyone’s? How about “a belief”? Second, who is accepting or rejecting the basis for justifying that belief? Is it you, me, or someone else? Within the context of this thread, do you have a particular belief that you would like me to examine? ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/174 "2011-04-01T11:35:39Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > But the fundamental difference is that whether or not most believers in evolution know about, care about, or understand the scientific method, the scientific method is still there, and the mountain of evidence accumulated so far is still observable, measurable, testable, repeatable, etc. Not sure why you are pointing out “the fundamental difference” between science and religious beliefs. I don’t have any religious beliefs and I accept the findings of science. I have studied and examined quite a bit of science (for a layman). There are people who know a lot more than I do and there are many people who know next to nothing about science. Some of them have religious beliefs and some of them don’t. In this thread, I am pointing out that those who know next to nothing about science and who still accept evolution are doing so on what is equivalent to religious faith. I’m not saying that’s how I view science. I’m not saying that’s the way it should be. I’m just saying that’s the way it is for many people. In any case, why is the amount (the mountain) of evidence relevant? Does more mean better? There are more theists than atheists. What does that mean? There’s a ton of religious literature and many, many accounts of god-experiences. Okay, the evidence that supports science is “observable, measurable, testable, repeatable”. Why is that better than the evidence for religious beliefs? That’s a question of philosophy (of epistemology and aesthetics) and perhaps even psychology and sociology. For me, the arguments in favor of religious beliefs are not convincing because of the starting point: the existence of the supernatural. > [@](#): > > The difference of course being that the outputs of the scientific method are physical, touchable, pointable, etc… unlike the outputs of religious faith. Ah, you mean like pyramids, temples, cathedrals and churches. 😉 FWIW, if you haven’t already done so, I suggest you explore the problem of the demarcation of science. Not as clear-cut as some people think it is. Enjoy! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/175 "2011-04-01T11:43:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Your posting style is hard to follow so I’ll admit I’m not sure what it is you believe. Well, you could ask me. 😉 Or, you can speculate: > [@](#): > > So you seem to think that science is about believing what scientists tell you. Nope. I think that there are at least three ways of viewing what science is: 1. A knowledge-gathering approach grounded in naturalism and empricism. 2. An activity: It’s what scientists do. 3. The body of knowledge that is compiled from what scientists do. In addition, there’s the naive, idealistic view of science based on what various people say it should be, but, in practice rarely is. And, there are the views based on ignorance that range from “Science is a bunch of made-up crap that has nothing to do with anything in my life” to a reverence bordering on worship. > [@](#): > > Science is about believing things because you don’t have to rely on what other people tell you. Scientists never ask you to trust what they’re saying. They’ll tell you “Here’s what happened. And here’s how you can verify that it happened.” The first sentence in the quote above is a bit difficult to parse. Key problem is the word “because”, and the fact that you are \*telling \*me that I don’t have to rely on what other people \*tell \*me. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. As for the rest, you are making some strong claims about what scientists do and don’t do. Seems to me that you are merely expressing your opinion. Fine, I won’t ask you to provide support for your opinion. > [@](#): > > Scientific evidence is not the same thing as legal evidence or historical evidence. Okay, but how is that related to anything I said about science? > [@](#): > > You don’t do that in scientific situations. You don’t believe scientific evidence because you find the scientist trustworthy. You only believe scientific evidence because it’s provable by experiment. You’re right – I don’t. But some people do. > [@](#): > > And that’s what the scientific method means. It means you have to prove what you saying is true every step of the way. I’m sure that you are very knowledgeable about science and about scientists. But, don’t you see the irony of your post? All you’ve provided is your opinion, with nothing to support it. No evidence, no proof, just your post as your cite. Was that your intent? ---
**Author:** ![TheThirdFuller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@TheThirdFuller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheThirdFuller)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/176 "2011-04-01T13:38:13Z")
Any good scientist will say that science isn’t about presenting facts. It is about presenting the best explanation for the evidence as it is shown. However, I think this is hedging the real question here. It appears the instigator of this thread is under the assumption that non-believers (in God) are as such because they believe in evolution. But there are plenty of reasons to not believe (or believe) in God (or a god). I accept the evidence and arguments supporting the theory of evolution. To imagine a world in which evolution is proven as junk science is difficult for me. But to give it the old college try, if evidence were to be presented and posited in such a way that the best explanation of the evidence was anti-evolutionary, I would still not believe in God (or a god). Evolution isn’t the only great mystery of the world that some people choose to attribute to God while others attempt to explain it scientifically. If evolution is proven non-existent, the only thing that will have happened is… evolution is proven non-existent. This does not prove the existence of a god. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/177 "2011-04-01T14:04:15Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > In any case, why is the amount (the mountain) of evidence relevant? Does more mean better? There are more theists than atheists. What does that mean? There’s a ton of religious literature and many, many accounts of god-experiences. Okay, the evidence that supports science is “observable, measurable, testable, repeatable”. Why is that better than the evidence for religious beliefs? That’s a question of philosophy (of epistemology and aesthetics) and perhaps even psychology and sociology. For me, the arguments in favor of religious beliefs are not convincing because of the starting point: the existence of the supernatural.Ah, you mean like pyramids, temples, cathedrals and churches. It’s clear that, despite your chosen username, you have no idea what science is. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/178 "2011-04-01T14:43:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s clear that, despite your chosen username, you have no idea what science is. You quoted my post to **Apollyon** in which I asked a number of exploratory questions that were meant to go deeper than the usual platitudes about the wonders of the scientific method. The one thing that is clear here is that you don’t understand my posts. But, rather than ask for clarification, you find it easier to criticize me. How about responding to my reply to your post? BTW, what have you studied about the philosophy of science? Did you do the usual Popper/Kuhn/Polanyi thing? And then you followed up with Lakatos and Feyerabend? Or are you strictly a “practical” scientist? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/179 "2011-04-01T14:44:33Z")
Even if not only creationism was a cast-iron, 100% non bullshit fact, AND the creator was also proven to be the Abrahamic god, that would still not explain why He, in His infinite Wisdom, saw fit to create necrotizing fasciitis. The creator of that is an _asshole_. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/180 "2011-04-01T14:46:31Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > Okay, the evidence that supports science is “observable, measurable, testable, repeatable”. Why is that better than the evidence for religious beliefs? “Evidence for religious beliefs”? I don’t think anyone here is saying that religious beliefs don’t exist. We are saying that just because a billion people believe some crazy shit, that doesn’t make it evidence. In other words, don’t believe everything you think. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194.md?page=10)