Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is bad for world

It doesn't suggest. It implies a high possibility of no God(capital 'G' pls take note). Like 85%I don't have to pander to your sensibilities, you don't like the way I type god that is your problem. Actually god is not mentioned whatsoever in either theory because god is not scientifically verifiable, god is irrelevant. Even without christianity they still don't make sense.What are you talking about? The theory of evolution makes perfect sense and the evidence is well established, the experts don't disagree on evolution the consensus is strong, the only objectors are the fundamentalist christian groups.Even if soCome on!! You know the train is moved by atheists. Those scientistts get their emotions mixed up with work. You don't have to wait for them to come for confession.Your understanding of science as a discipline is laughable, science it is engineered to work against our biases, peer reviews plays a part in deterring bias, I've studied the evidence, from an objective rational point of view the theory of evolution predicts much of what we expect to see in nature thus attesting to it's accuracy, we can make predictions using the theory of evolution. So it's a coincidence? It's sensible . But then it's just the outlook. You cannot confidently conclude on motives.The theory is highly unlikely to be intended for contradicting anyone's beliefs as science is a discipline that is engineered to deter biases. Evolution makes sense(continuity) to some extent(doesn't mean it's true though);It's not just that it makes sense, it's the fact that it explains a lot of phenomena and the entire biodiversity of life itself accurately enough we can make predictions off of it... That means something in science, I'm sorry slice it however you want but that is good science. It's empirically backed, it's the most accurate understanding of how species are changing over time (because they are, that is an established fact).  incomplete at the core(origins) making it nonsensical.Are you talking about the theory of Abiogenesis? Because that is not evolution, evolution doesn't claim to explain the origin of anything other than biodiversity in life which it does beautifully, we all started out as a single cell organism and over time through changes (via mutations) driven by the desire to live and reproduce and the environment in relation to the organisms of that species leads to aquiring more advantages among it's populace over time. It makes perfect sense because it explains what we see in our overall understanding of the world scientifically and historically. We know due to methods used within geography that the deeper underground the fossil the older it tends to be, when aligning all the fossils we see change over time as the theory of evolution would predict. We've observed it directly via experimenting with cells, it aligns with our understanding of DNA perfectly, the only way it could not be true between our understanding of DNA and the theory of evolution is if mutations didn't occur which there is very concrete evidence of them occuring. No, the explanation for biodiversity of life does not explain the origin of life, that is a different explanation. We don't ask where atoms came from before we ask why atoms are doing the things they do. We ask both questions.There are demonic doctrines. "Not all who say lord lord............"And it sounds like more nonsense if you believe in the big bang theory and yet say God exists or he caused it in creation. He is a loony seeking attention and he got it. Even these atheistic scientists made it less nonsensical by making it highly imply God couldn't exist then.LMFAO I can so relate, the irony is dumbfounding.Religious is just letters. Your heart proves it. That guy was atheist at heart. And atheist scientists grabbed it. Most religious scientists reject what their fellow religious person said.....why? The catholic guy was either lying he believes God exists or he is an idiot.I don't even think he even had a personal bible he used to read. The big bang was one of his childhood imaginations, he never let go(many can't), and he finally got a good platform to shylessly blurt it out. And it was grabbed by........(not all scientists)Ok, do let me ask again, their is a man claiming that his theory explains how the universe was created and that he believes it was god's (liar or an idiot, doesn't matter) work, if the scientific community is trying to bend science to support the atheistic world view why would we lend credit to that man?I have a lot of self made scientific theories. Some are with existing evidence and some are assumptions. So there many people who have a lot of things in their heads. some are good and others nonsense(what big bang happened to be)Ok, if you think it is so easy then go collect your nobel prize. I'm waiting... after all if a man claiming his theory was god's work was accepted by the scientific community why couldn't your theories?It will be disrespect, to discover Him like a planet.On a side note, I am very curious as to why you think that is?