[DanielStraight]

Obviously it can be wrong... but it isn't scientifically falsifiable. This is entire crux of what I'm trying to say. You can no more use science to disprove creationism than creationists can to prove it. It isn't a claim which is subject to scientific inquiry. Science has nothing to say on the subject of supernatural events with apparent natural causes. Science is a tool for providing natural, empirical explanations. Supernatural events are by definition invisible to science, because science chooses not to accept supernatural explanations. That's what makes it science.

You are free to criticize the legitimacy of religious beliefs, but science will not help you. Science cannot disprove what it does not accept or examine (namely, supernatural events). Science simply says that a natural explanation exists. Whether that explanation is "true", science cannot say. If gravity is really caused by an invisible flying spaghetti monster pulling everything with his noodly appendages, science will never see it. It cannot. Science refuses supernatural explanations.

I am not saying that popularity makes supernatural beliefs correct. I'm saying it makes them important. The concept that science is one way, but not the only way, people choose to understand the world is important. Whether science is "true", no one can say. Untestable, supernatural phenomena are just that: untestable. It could be that the flying spaghetti monster really controls everything in universe. All we can know is that if he/she/it does, he/she/it does it in such a way that natural explanations still work. There's no way to actually test the theory of a supernatural spaghetti monster. The distinction is subtle, but I think it's important.

[thirdtruck]

Non-scientific explanations do have to account for the neurological research that can explain the causes behind those very idea themselves, though.

We're dealing with faulty analysis software (our brains), one with documented bugs and all kinds of premature optimizations. We have to account for that.

A developer can convince his teammates, QA, management, and even the customer that a given bug is a feature. When that "feature" causes the plane guided by that software to go crashing into a mountain, however, we can't declare the mountain a "moral hazard" or "something beyond the understanding of requirements gathering". Instead, we fix the bug to account for the mountain, tell the developer to stop making that mistake, and try again.

[figglesonrails]

+1 Popular = important in dealing with other humans, whether you like it or not.

We're not going to convert the whole world to atheism tomorrow, so being able to understand why Buddhists don't drink alcohol or why Muslims say "إن شاء الله" when using the future tense will probably only help you co-exist. A little understanding goes a long way, whether you agree with their beliefs or not.

[vezzy-fnord]

You're really stretching the definition of "truth" here, much like a Pyrrhonist would in that nothing can be 100% certain.

Of course it can't. Classic example: I can't prove the entire universe isn't just a brain in a vat.

However, we have to draw some lines and reasonable expectations. If a belief cannot be tested and has no evidence backing it, we discount it until we find supporting evidence for it.

Science can't say something is absolutely and undeniably true, but it can say that something is true beyond a reasonable doubt. You're setting very philosophically pretentious standards about truth here.

Science is certainly not the only way. Yet it has consistently shown itself to be the most reliable and effective way.

In fact, the scientific method is such a fundamental way of reasoning that if a supernatural realm is ever discovered, it will be likely thanks to the scientific method, even though science by default discounts supernatural explanations.

Science has unearthed a lot of observable, tested and verified counterexplanations to supposedly supernatural occurrences, which no one has been able to refute other than setting higher and vaguer standards.

Ultimately, the burden of the proof lies on the person making the large claims. If they cannot back them, by default we exclude their claims until conclusive evidence is found to support otherwise. Just because there are alternate ways of interpreting the world does not mean they are legitimate or that they should be given respect or credence automatically.