"Creationists don't explain what exists on the basis of supernatural causes except for the original Creation itself."
OK, but what was originally created and when? The early universe or young earth genesis? The claims vary greatly.
"Some living things did "evolve" from others, that is, they are varieties of a Species that were potential in the genome from the beginning."
I understand from this that you believe god created an "original genome". I believe the "original" genome(s)evolved and have been evolving ever since.... mutating, becoming more or less complex and disappearing completely. Some genetically determined characteristics found in human populations today are clearly advantageous to survival/reproduction in certain conditions. This is evidence of genetic mutations happening within recent history (entirely new genetic material, not simply recombination).
"but when it theorizes about origins it can go very wrong and have no way to correct the error because there is no way to test the past".
You may not be able to directly test the past but you can make hypotheses about past events with reference to available evidence and make predictions that fit that evidence. New evidence will either support the predictions or not. And yes, some things cannot be tested and may never be. It is important to distinguish the scientific process from the actions of scientists. Not everything scientists do are scientific. Scientists theorise, science doesn't. But having said that even strict observance of the scientific process may not deliver correct information (consider sample sizes and available technology). However, as a collective process it is self-correcting, requiring only intelligence and effort. Science never says anything is proven, only disproven. It doesn't say evolution is 100% true. It says it is by far the best explanation so far.
"So it takes for granted what is really no more than a prejudice, just like you,"
Should something that was incorrect be taken for granted, application of scientific testing would likely reveal the error. Prejudices are discredited by honest application of scientific testing. Is it a prejudice to hold a belief in the truth of things strongly supported by evidence? If so, then rather that than believing things lacking any evidence or not fitting all the available evidence.
"accepting what "makes more sense to them" although there is no way to establish it on a truly scientific footing."
Not everything needs to be subjected to scientific testing before they are accepted. But important things usually should be when they can be. Things that don't fit the evidence, especially when they are important to ones life, should be subjected to honest evaluation.
By the way, my test for truth is not simply that it "makes more sense to me". Intuition is often wrong... developed to improve our chance of survival (poor wording) rather than predict the truth. And our senses are very limited and inferior to other animals. Reality is often counter intuitive.
"Creationists don't explain what exists on the basis of supernatural causes except for the original Creation itself."
OK, but what was originally created and when? The early universe or young earth genesis? The claims vary greatly.
"Some living things did "evolve" from others, that is, they are varieties of a Species that were potential in the genome from the beginning."
I understand from this that you believe god created an "original genome". I believe the "original" genome(s)evolved and have been evolving ever since.... mutating, becoming more or less complex and disappearing completely. Some genetically determined characteristics found in human populations today are clearly advantageous to survival/reproduction in certain conditions. This is evidence of genetic mutations happening within recent history (entirely new genetic material, not simply recombination).
"but when it theorizes about origins it can go very wrong and have no way to correct the error because there is no way to test the past".
You may not be able to directly test the past but you can make hypotheses about past events with reference to available evidence and make predictions that fit that evidence. New evidence will either support the predictions or not. And yes, some things cannot be tested and may never be. It is important to distinguish the scientific process from the actions of scientists. Not everything scientists do are scientific. Scientists theorise, science doesn't. But having said that even strict observance of the scientific process may not deliver correct information (consider sample sizes and available technology). However, as a collective process it is self-correcting, requiring only intelligence and effort. Science never says anything is proven, only disproven. It doesn't say evolution is 100% true. It says it is by far the best explanation so far.
"So it takes for granted what is really no more than a prejudice, just like you,"
Should something that was incorrect be taken for granted, application of scientific testing would likely reveal the error. Prejudices are discredited by honest application of scientific testing. Is it a prejudice to hold a belief in the truth of things strongly supported by evidence? If so, then rather that than believing things lacking any evidence or not fitting all the available evidence.
"accepting what "makes more sense to them" although there is no way to establish it on a truly scientific footing."
Not everything needs to be subjected to scientific testing before they are accepted. But important things usually should be when they can be. Things that don't fit the evidence, especially when they are important to ones life, should be subjected to honest evaluation.
By the way, my test for truth is not simply that it "makes more sense to me". Intuition is often wrong... developed to improve our chance of survival (poor wording) rather than predict the truth. And our senses are very limited and inferior to other animals. Reality is often counter intuitive.