Egos and Bunsen burners

There was a great presentation at church yesterday regarding arguments for/against evolution and creation. It was presented with some basic information by a PhD professor of Biology. He made an attempt to be as non-partial as possible and emphasized that interpretation of the data for these topics really depends on your personal world view. He encouraged the audience to look into the facts and to read material on both sides in order to understand the context better. Next week at church we will look at what the bible says about creation. It was very informative and I looked at some information this morning to help me have a better understanding of the information that is out there, on both sides.

"…creationists' methods were not scientific but took the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempted to find scientific support for it."

Doesn't this describe evolution as well? Darwin wrote a book and scientists have been trying "to find scientific support for it" ever since. My problem is not with whether or not evolution is viable as an answer, but with the egos of scientists that think they know anything with certainty. I am not so arrogant that I cannot accept I could be wrong, but it seems wholly impossible for the scientific community to accept an alternative to evolution (or big bang). Many times man has thought to "know" things that were later discounted. Evolution is man's finite knowledge-based, best guess at explaining the origins of man. Similarly, the big bang theory is man's finite knowledge-based, best guess at explaining the origins of the world we live in (and the larger universe). That same finite knowledge-based thinking lead to ideas like "the Sun revolves around the Earth."

Will science issue a formal apology when it is proven they didn’t know everything? Not likely. The scientific community will say that knowledge was limited at the time of this thinking, and through exploration of these ideas we were able to uncover the truth. They will point to postulation of the scientific flavor of the day as the “new facts” and discount anything that doesn't support that "new thinking." So close-minded is the scientific community to the concept of a greater power that they will not, cannot allow such thinking to exist without discrediting it as “pseudoscience.” Since no one was there to record it in history for us, I postulate we should think hard about what we say “we know” and what we say we “believe.”