Thanks for the thoughtful response! I'll write more later, but for now.... I think you're confusing circular reasoning with internal consistency (something theories strive for). Circular reasoning can be pointed out in most theories, but only if you look at the foundation or basic assumptions of a theory. For instance, atomic theory assumes that atoms exist. Measurements of an atom can be made, so atoms must exist; if they didn't exist, how could they be measured? Another example is the assumption that the speed of light is constant. We observe time slow down as things speed up, so the assumption looks "right." If the assumption is "right," then we should expect time to slow; but a better explanation may come along later.
This is a characteristic for all theories as well as religions too, I think. We have to make basic assumptions in order to have more complex ideas.
I do disagree with your statement: "Speculative assumptions is passed as FACT...."
Speculative assumptions such as "Does God like what the evos are doing with his science?
NOPE."
Well, sorry, guess my point is that science is always ready to see old "facts" explained away by some new "facts." ...and if that is true, then were these ever really "facts?"
As you use "FACT," I think you're referring to "reality." When science uses "fact," they mean a basic idea or observation which hasn't been refuted (despite many attempts), YET.
Science speculates, and science assumes facts (until disproven), but speculating facts is not science. In the heat of the moment, people refer to 'facts," but if you pin a scientist down on the matter, they should agree that their facts are provisional; that they are only facts within the context of the theory to which they pertain.
I'm probably overstating (or even wrongly stating) this point, but I'm trying to convey that science is not "set in stone." It is not reality, it is just a method or tool helpful in understanding and organizing our perception of reality.
I'll try for a better response later, but for now let me try to illustrate my point by saying that I believe both the theories of relativity and of evolution are NOT "true." But I can still use these theories to help me explain, understand, and talk about reality. Similarly, I don't think any religion is "true," but I could still use religion to try to understand or talk about God.
Thanks again; more later?
~Samwik
