Creationists and science

Post Reply New Topic

Scientific theories do not produce positive proofs (that is the job of logic and mathematics). Scientific investigation can establish that a hypothesis is consistent with previously known facts, predictive of future facts and not yet falsified by experiment. Science can only establish that certain hypotheses fail. It does not produce final absolute proofs of anything. The history of physical science is littered with the corpses of busted theories. Caloric, phlogiston, geocentrism, vital essence are some examples. The nice thing about science is that false hypotheses will be eliminated sooner or later given enough facts and technology for making experiments. It took nearly 250 years to falsify Newton's theory of gravitation. It took over 100 years to falsify the equipartition of energy among all electromagnetic frequencies (see quantum theory). We know current physics is defective and incomplete since the theories of subatomic phenomena (quantum physics) cannot be joined with the theory of gravitation in a unified manner.

The strength of science is not absolute proof, but the process of correction built within its methodologies.

ruveyn

The body, the bullet, and the smoking gun would naturally fall out of the realm of the scientific method of proof, because it cannot precisely be repeated in a controlled environment, and into the realm of legal-historical proof. Sorry I wasn't very clear on my definition of the historical method of proof when I wrote that "Historical proof, then, must be based on written testimony, oral testimony, or exhibits, such as used in the court of law."

The legal-historical method doesn't ignore or overlook the facts just because they cannot be repeated, but it does allow the facts to speak for themselves until a verdict is reached beyond a reasonable doubt and a balance of probability is reached.

For example, I did not witness the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and, because I am unable to repeat or reproduce that in a controlled environment, I must therefore rely on documents and reliable testimony from that time in history to determine its plausibility.

And I believe this legal-historical proof is the method that the world uses to answer such historical questions as, "Did Homer write the Iliad?"; "Did Washington cross the Delaware River?"; "Did Jesus live in Nazareth?"

All historical documentation does not have equal acceptability. Gullibility and reason play a strong part in deciding which to accept, which to deny and which to hold in various conditions of acceptability. Documentation acceptability has a quality of decay over time and parallel documentation plays a large part in accepting its validity. Even very recent events such as the assassination of Kennedy and the events of 9/11 and the many weird reports of flying saucers have elements of great uncertainty about them. Ancient events such as that around the origins of Christianity are so replete with historical doubt and emotional prejudice that very little can be totally accepted at face value.

Evolution "After years of rigourous testing, this is what happened. and if not, I will change it based on the new evidence."
Creationism "God did it all and if you say otherwise your going to hell and I can't hear your lies, LALALALALLALALAL."

I believe most of the early pioneers of science, such as Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, and Michael Faraday, were actually devout Christians who believed that the universe was created by the will of One God and not by the will of a man-made theory.

I think before Christianity directed science into the analysis of experimentation, verification, falsification, and quantitative data, the scientific world in Europe had basically used ideas appropriated from Aristotle's theory, such as the earth was immovable, the sun was without blemish, and air fell upward.

I find that just a cursory glance at history shows that almost every branch of science can be traced back to those scientists who operated within a Christian framework, and that modern science is basically rooted in Christian theism’s belief in One God.

It seems to me that many evolutionists do not wish to let the facts speak for themselves; instead, I believe many evolutions prefer to speak for the facts because this enables them to doctor up the facts to suit their own belief system.

I think that, if one wishes to caricature their opponent, it is only fair that they caricature themselves at the same time. I'm someone on board the evolution theory boat, so I think I'm qualified to caricature us.

So, here is my impression of how evolutionists sound:

Evolutionist "Evolution did it all, I know this because it is what most scientists believe and if you say otherwise then you are stupid. STUPID!."

The most early pioneers in western science were not Christians, but - when religious at all - devout followers of Zeus and his wider family. Other great mathematicians were Hindu or followers of the Chinese religion, other were Muslims or Jews (especially in the Golden Age of Islamic Science and later too).

The fact that those scientist are religious does only prove that they grown up in religious society.



Christianity directed nothing in this way - Christianity officially supported Aristotle. The revocation of science in 16th century has less to do with Christianity, but a lot with Renaissance and recovering of "pagan" writers. With the 15th century in Europe a curiosity regarding Antiquity started - not least as clear contrast to medieval, aka christian, thinking and philosophy.



The history of modern science is also the process of emancipating from the Christian prejudice. Those how made the general contributions to modern thinking were prosecuted by the church (or by the official community in the case of Spinoza). Step-by-step science provided by observation of nature explanation of the world without the need of a god.

Newton did not had a theory regarding the development of life on earth - so he stayed with the stuff he learned as a child.



That's utterly nonsense: The facts are well published. You will hardly find a copy of Science Magazine of Nature in which facts are published which can be only explained by evolution.

Not the "most scientists", but all - with an amount of evidence, starting with fossils, the DNA, mathematical models, evolution still happing, supported by other methods like radioactive decay, etc. etc. etc. pp. pp.

---

It is hard to think about any other scientific theory which so well proven as evolution - not least, because it was at the of publishing revolutionary. Charles Darwin made it in this debate from a scientific misfit to one of the few commoner how received a state funeral in Britain (the most recent for a commoner was the funeral of Winston Churchill). Today the evidences are even stronger.

I try not to use the word "all" Dussel, because when it comes to humanity there are always contrarians. To disprove what you have said I need only find one crackpot scientist who received a degree in a hovel of an institution (there are also scientists in other fields who do not believe in evolution - but their view is no more relevant than a non-scientist's).

I also know that evolution is considered as proven as is possible. I was not attempting to argue against evolution, because I believe in it.

Anyway, the point of the caricature I made was to highlight that there are people who follow evolution based on it being what is taught in their society, rather than on independant study. I was pointing out that those who try to portray the argument as purely a battle between the unwavering logic of science and the biased madness of religion are not correct. It is also in its part battle of propaganda.

With evolution as with other scientific perceptions of the universe logical analysis is the fundamental factor in accepting conclusions. This very basis for conceiving the way the universe developed and exists is rejected by religious people. You cannot argue with that.

I can and I shall, by pointing out that there are scientists who believe in a religion.

Of course, you could then say that they are not subjecting their faith to scientific standards. Then we would be in an argument over whether it is possible to scrutinise such things with science. This is an argument which already exists in another thread.

There are scientists who are drug addicts, alcoholics, schizophrenics wife beaters, pedophiles, etc. I am uncomfortable exhibiting this as an example of a generality.

Please forgive me, but I'm not sure what you are saying here.

What I am saying is that scientists in general are logical people who, in general, apply logic to all aspects of their perception. No doubt there are scientists who exclude this type of discipline to the emotional side of their viewpoints but I feel reasonably sure they are a minority.

To be honest i'm somewhat amazed that people still regard "evolution" as a theory. I'm equally amazed that any non-delusional human-being can demand that creationism by taught in a science lesson.

Science in general is full of accepted perceptions designated as theories. The term is misunderstood by those unfamiliar with science and by creationists who don't understand that all generalities in science are subject to doubt and modification as new data is arrived at. Religious people are used to the idea that a concept can be proclaimed as eternal and doubters punished as a matter of course. Science doesn't work that way.