> science is built around making verifiable
> predictions but doesn't in fact give any
> answers, only theories
This is just redefining "theory" and "answer" to the point of meaninglessness.
Darwin didn't know a lot of things about evolution or biology, and I'm sure he had questions about some of those things. If you could talk to him today you could give him answers to those questions, and the reason for that is that those answers are found in theories and scientific progress in general.
But yes, it doesn't provide "answers" in the mushy religious sense, i.e. "what is it all for?".
> The difference between science and
> religion doesn't lie in disagreement
> over particular facts or any facts at all
Yes, it does. You're just implicitly excluding all the parts where religious texts make empirical claims about reality as unimportant or allegory, because religion has already lost those arguments.
Do you think Galileo clashed with the Catholic church over heliocentrism because the church didn't understand what religion should and shouldn't be making claims about?
Darwin didn't know a lot of things about evolution or biology, and I'm sure he had questions about some of those things. If you could talk to him today you could give him answers to those questions, and the reason for that is that those answers are found in theories and scientific progress in general.
But yes, it doesn't provide "answers" in the mushy religious sense, i.e. "what is it all for?".
Yes, it does. You're just implicitly excluding all the parts where religious texts make empirical claims about reality as unimportant or allegory, because religion has already lost those arguments.Do you think Galileo clashed with the Catholic church over heliocentrism because the church didn't understand what religion should and shouldn't be making claims about?