What is Science?
Though science is never an absolute truth, it provides support to a certain idea that is likely to be true. Science is always changing, and the whole point of it is to find new evidence to prove or disprove something true. It is not meant to be stagnant. So refuting an argument because science is not 100 % correct does not prove anything because nothing in this world can be defined completely. The point of the matter is that there is an immeasurable amount of information in favor of that particular idea and no one has yet been able to disprove it. To me, this is like a court case. The judge and jury do not physically know what happened because they were not present during the crime. The consensus is based on evidence and reasonable fact. Hearsay is not admissible.
Thus, we are required to use our logic to determine what is likely to be true and what is likely to be untrue. Science is not black and white. Science is not saying "THIS DOES NOT EXIST." Instead, science says "There is no evidence of A, but there is evidence of B which is more likely to be true. Until given valid evidence in support of A, we cannot conclude it as an absolute truth. And, in this case, A is religion and B is scientific law and order. While many believe that Science is not believing in God or supernatural elements, that is not so. Science is not Atheism. Do not misinterpret my words to say that Atheism is a bad thing. I am just attempting to portray the fact that many people confuse Science and Atheism to be one in the same. Science is always changing. There is no bias (at least that is the goal of Science). Atheism is Science, but Science is not Atheism, if you get my drift. Therefore, it is ignorant to say, for example, that everyone who believes in evolution is an Atheist. We cannot define science on a basis of religion because it is merely fact and theory. Atheism comes into play as a rejection of religion and an affinity to base one's beliefs off of science. Misconception between science and religion are part of the reason why there is such a gap in our communication with one another.
Common Sense is Not Science
Usually, the ideas that science prove true are not very obvious--observable, yes--but not obvious. Likewise, things that seem obvious are not necessarily science. Common sense may tell us that the earth is flat, that the Sun rises and sets, that the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that particles don't curve around corners like waves around a floating dock, that the continents don't move, and that objects heavier-than-air can't have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science shows that these ideas are wrong. Therefore, when someone says that evolution is not true because you cannot observe it in front of your eyes, that does not mean that it is necessarily false. As they would use the argument that just because we cannot see God does not mean that God does not exist, the difference here is that there is an immeasurable amount of evidence to back up the concept of evolution when there is no evidence to back up God. I'm not saying God exists or does not. I am simply putting forth the idea that people need to re-evaluate their own arguments. Since many theists like to use the argument that we cannot prove evolution true based on the grounds that it is not observable, then they should re-consider their whole contradictory argument they just said about God: that just because you cannot see God does not mean that God is not out there. If these people can accept this, then why can't they accept evolution and other scientific ideas that actually are observable?
Just Because Many Claim It To Be True, Doesn't Mean It Is
Just because many people believe in some kind of religion does not mean that it is true. I do not believe that their beliefs should be "punished," per say (First Amendment rights are essential!), but I do believe that they are opinions, not fact. I have noted how many Christians like to show how other religions are wrong based on some outlandish events that have been noted to have occurred, such as instances noted in the ancient Greek religions. However, many accounts noted in the Bible are just as outlandish. Just reading the Bible brings up many questions on its validity. It seems many Theists argue that the Bible is true because The Bible says it is true. Where is the logic in that? No one could even THINK about making an argument like that as evidence in court.
Christianity: The Stagnant Bible vs. The Changing World
The Bible is suppose to be stagnant. People argue that since the Bible says something specific, then that is the final word. However, when bringing up a practice from the past that is not widely accepted today, they say that times are changing and that the Bible was written during a different point in history. Well, what is it going to be? You can't claim parts of the Bible and disregard other parts. You either follow through with it or don't follow it at all. The Bible itself even says that. So, really, people who follow it are technically supposed to follow everything written and not change it's verse to modern times. Even I can find myself hypocritical at times, though, because I believe that if people are going to follow the Bible, they ought to follow the entire thing and not just the aspects of their choosing. Yet, there are some people who reasonably follow the Bible only in regards to history and a *general* sense of morality, and I, logically, do not think there is anything wrong with that. I do suppose if someone would be better suited to follow morality and cultural ideas from many other cultures if they are going to follow their own version of spirituality. However, if they are only going to follow a few parts from the Bible and nothing else, they might as well just be Christian and follow through with the entire religious base. I am not telling people that is what they should do, I am just showing my thoughts when I observe this and the issues these aspects of religion raise.
Faith vs. Knowledge
The Bible notably condemns knowledge. Some would argue this, but when you look at what is noted in Genesis with Adam and Eve, God specifically did not want them to eat from the tree of knowledge. He wanted them to be innocent and not exposed to evil. But why would He entrust in people to follow his beliefs if He did not want them to be knowledgeable? How would they know if they had no knowledge? If God did not want to send people to Hell, then why not create a universe full of peace and obedience? Also, on this idea of knowledge being condemned...how were Adam and Eve supposed to know not to eat the apple if they had no knowledge? They wouldn't have understood good and bad...that would be like giving capital punishment to a one year old for eating a crayon even though you told the child not to. The child would not understand unless he or she had enough knowledge to know better. Where is the mens rea? How is it that a murderer can "repent" and get into Heaven, yet an unbaptized infant will go to Hell? A rapist who repents and believes in God will go to Heaven, but a good, kind-hearted individual will go to Hell for not believing in God? What about animals? Do they go to Hell for not believing in God? How is this just? How is this love? To me, this sounds like a dictatorship and its token bloodthirsty need for a complete alliance to the powerful one, without question and without objection.
The Natural Laws
I would also like to point out that the Bible seems to display a completely different set of natural laws, such as how animals can talk, humans can live for hundreds of years, and such, just to name a few. Why would God have created plants before creating the sun when they need the sun to survive? Why did all of these natural laws suddenly change, especially when the Bible is so against change? The Bible does not even believe in various cases of microevolution, let alone macroevolution...it is evident that the Bible and its content is meant to be stagnant, even though we can scientifically and empirically see that this is proven otherwise.
Furthermore, why were Adam and Eve even created with genitals? The sole purpose of genitals is procreation, but God didn't make this happen until after they disobeyed him. This does not make sense. What really does not make sense is that though both Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, Eve got much worse punishment. Women are always considered temptresses in the Bible. Even if a man sins, it is somehow a woman's fault for "tempting" him. Yes, blame it all on the women and give them painful punishment, possibly death for this kind of "behavior." This is no different than the mindset of the Nazi party--they are evil, so we must punish them. But then again, Hitler followed the Christian faith.
This brings me to my original point. The fact of the matter is, people are always trying to refute scientific evidence. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. That is why there are theories and hypotheses. People cannot refute gravity because it is inevitable. People can try, but the point is, it takes a substantial amount of evidence for a hypothesis to turn into reality, and evolution is possible and existent in this universe today. One would think that it would be more outlandish to believe that animals could tempt humans into doing the devil's work than the fact that they can evolve over time.