Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#15347 09/24/06 01:19 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
O
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
I want to pose this for the public debate.

What is science but tested belief?

All science under the current principles starts with a belief and then that belief is tested. The belief is then disreagrded if the test disproves it. Even if the test doesn't disprove it immediately, we continue testing until we do disprove it.

In other words, we go on believing until we find a test to prove us wrong.

On top of that, when a belief in science is disproved, it is not necessarily disregarded, but instead refined.

Given that, I pose these questions:

Why is belief in the bible and in God and Christ, so strongly resisted by some people in the scientific community?

I mean, what is it more than a belief that is refined when interpretations are disproved?

Certainly, I can agree that when an interpretation is disproven by observation, that clinging to it, as some christians do, is silly, and their belief can be supported simply by taking what they now and returning to the scriptures for a better interpretation and study.

Secondly, why is evolution so heavily clung to without scientific proof?

Maybe I'm lacking in information, but from my understanding of evolutionary theory, it is simply theory and not provable. All examples I've encountered that make attempts to show evolution, also fit this theory:

The world is full of many and varied species of life, some very similar in likeness, and some of these species become extinct.

I don't contend very much with the theory of evolution on a broad scale, because I don't think it has to be contradictory to Christianity. I merely point out these statements because it would seem to me that there are those among the scientific community who argue in favor of what seems like a faith based issue, and then argue against an issue that is also faith based.

Incidentally, to whom I'm referring to in that last staement can be taken either way. Both points of exclusivity seem in contrdiction to me.


"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist
.
#15348 09/24/06 02:19 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
1) evolution has scientific proof that it clings to. If it did not have the proof, no one would cling to it.

2) many scientist are christian. They just dont believe that the bible is meant to be taken at the same level as science. They believe that genises is a parable. That means it is something of a guide, rather than a hard and fast concrete statement of how things came about.

3) viewed from a standpoint of a parable, it does not disagree with science.

4) there is no evidence that it can be taken as anything but a parable.

5) certain things are known as facts. these do not require belief. do you have to test weither a fire is hot everytime you make it? No, it is a given fact. Many things about evolution are amoung those fact.

6) faith demands you believe things regardless of wheither there is facts to back it up or not. Science demands that there be facts to back it up, regardless of what you believe.

edited to change guild to guide.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#15349 09/24/06 06:34 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Why is belief in the bible and in God and Christ, so strongly resisted by some people in the scientific community?"

False argument. We don't reject your right to hold your belief. We reject your calling this "science."

#15350 09/24/06 07:24 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Originally posted by onegermanglassofbeer:
[QB] Secondly, why is evolution so heavily clung to without scientific proof?

Maybe I'm lacking in information, but from my understanding of evolutionary theory, it is simply theory and not provable. All examples I've encountered that make attempts to show evolution, also fit this theory:

The world is full of many and varied species of life, some very similar in likeness, and some of these species become extinct. [QB/]

OGGB: You're mixing the scientific definition of the word "theory" with the common definition. Accepted theory is as high up as things get in the sciences. It is not a wild hunch or hare-brained idea, as the common usage of the word implies. The common definition of "theory" is more like the scientific definition of "hypothesis."

[QB]I don't contend very much with the theory of evolution on a broad scale, because I don't think it has to be contradictory to Christianity. I merely point out these statements because it would seem to me that there are those among the scientific community who argue in favor of what seems like a faith based issue, and then argue against an issue that is also faith based.[QB/]

The only "faith" one needs to accept evolution is faith in the scientific method. Christian faith and acceptance of evolution are not in opposition to each other, unless you insist that Genesis is literally true. Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University is a well-respected biologist AND a devout Catholic. Other biologists belong to other Christian churches. The only people who have issues with evolution, it seems, are religious fundamentalists of all stripes: Christian, Muslim, etc.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#15351 09/24/06 07:35 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Secondly, why is evolution so heavily clung to without scientific proof?"

That you ask a question like this shows that you haven't done any homework on the subject - either on evolution or on science, in general.

Science is not about what you can prove, it's about what you can disprove. My daughter's learnt this is 7th grade science.

Ever wonder why chemistry is taught as fact? In particular, have you ever wondered why the existence of hydrogen atoms is not conveyed to students as something that is in any way questionable? And yet - not one person has EVER seen a hydrogen atom. The truth about the existence of H2 is based ENTIRELY on inferences. In science, you don't have to see something to consider it factual.

Evolution, including the rise of humans and other apes from a common ancestor, is based on inferences about existing evidence - EXACTLY the same way that the existence of H2 atoms is based on inferences from evidence.

Science will never say anything about God. God and indeed ALL of the supernatural, if it exists, is by definition outside the purview of science. And neither theology, intelligent design, nor any other form of creationism is science.

#15352 09/24/06 10:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
TFF,

I dispute your analogy. In no way can the existence of hydrogen atoms be comparable to the theory of evolution.

The existence of hydrogen atoms would be much more open to disproof. Much easier than contemporary evolutionary theory which is far more complex and elastic.

But then again, it may be worth making a distinction. Fossil evidence, genetic research etc. is much more in line with, say, chemistry than much of what surrounds evolutionary theory - the theories about how we evolved morality, guilt, emotions, artistic creativity and so on. These seem to be theories in the common every day sense of the word.

Blacknad.

#15353 09/24/06 11:31 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
dehammer:
1) please look up the meaning of the word "guild"
2) please edit your post where you used that word, it does not make sense.

Amaranth

#15354 09/25/06 12:56 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
onegermanglassofbeer, science is interesting. Often the results are thrown away by those that disagree. For example if the earth is old then we should find no Carbon 14 inside of a diamond.....it all should have decayed by now. But guess what? We do find Carbon 14 inside of diamonds. Maybe the diamonds arn't as old as certain scientific faiths think they are.
Then there is the dino tissue that survived for 65+ MY's...well we all know it really won't last that long, but some scientific faith need it to be so.
Other examples are Zircons...which are tiny crystals which often occur in granite. The zircon crystals contain helium atoms which result from the decay of internal uranium atoms. The problem is, is that if the granite which contains the zircon is as old as some scientific faith need it to be...the helium would have escaped by now leaving none.

None of these 3 problems claim that the the earth is 6,000 years old...nor does it say the earth is 4.5 BY's old.

It's interesting to point out that not only is the bible contradictory to evolutionISM and its science...but old earth evolutionism is contradictory to simple science as pointed out above in my post.

Now if an individual want to keep on believeing in his or hers particular scientific faith of an old earth, then I say...go on.

But remember science says you are wrong.

#15355 09/25/06 02:06 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"I dispute your analogy"
Dispute as you wish. All analogies break down at a point, but as far as I carried it, this one was correct. We don't have to see hydrogen atoms (occurring) to develop a clear logical case that they exist.

The vast preponderance of available scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. It is considered a fact by the vast majority of scientists who have actually studied it. There are practically no top tier scientists who reject it - and none who rejects it based on information from a field in which he is considered by his peers to be an expert.

#15356 09/25/06 12:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
But is speciation falsifiable?

I only ask because I'm not sure. As I say, based upon the preponderance of evidence I accept evolution.

I have wondered in my less than better moments whether it was possible to mis-interpret much of the evidence because it is viewed through a paradigm. My belief is that most people come to a conclusion about evolution long before they sufficiently understand the evidence. This then impacts the way they actually come to the evidence. We have had major paradigm shifts in the past that have made us re-evaluate evidence.

I have to admit that my tendency to think there is some design in evolution (ie. some guiding principles set into the basic laws of the universe that stacked the cards in the first place so that an end (sentient creatures) could be achieved) is powered by my faith and has nothing whatsoever to do with science. It is backed up by an emotional and intuitive belief that purely random processes cannot produce some of the complexity we see. I FEEL there must be some driving force.

So it's nothing scientific for me, but just subjective. I can understand where Trilobyte comes from and it probably wouldn't matter how much I understood the math of genetic mutations, hot-spots (how did hot-spots come into being in such an advantageous way?) etc. I would still at the core of me have a feeling inside that it is in some way too incredible to just be.

Okay I'm rambling - don't be too hard on me, I'm just being honest with you...

Blacknad.

#15357 09/25/06 02:12 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Dear Blacknad,

"But is speciation falsifiable?"

Now THAT is an interesting question. Speciation is an observable fact. Even the creationist intelligentsia now admits that speciation occurs. However, they maintain that while animal populations can generate new species, they cannot generate new 'kinds.'

Can observable facts be falsified? Can we falsify the idea that the earth is round, for example. Yes. Falsification doesn't mean we can actually disprove something. Falsification means that we can devise a question that would disprove the idea if it were wrong. If the world were flat, for example, a mariner could travel on the ocean and coastal mountain ranges would not vanish disappear behind the horizon.

I've never actually thought through the criteria for speciation, since it's observable, but I'll think about it a bit and get back with you.

"It is backed up by an emotional and intuitive belief that purely random processes cannot produce some of the complexity we see. I FEEL there must be some driving force."
That's an honest sentiment and honest reasoning. How could I have a problem with it?

First, the nature of randomness is not well understood by most lay people, especially as concerns evolution. Random doesn't mean "anything goes." If I write a program that generates random real numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1, it's not going to return 100 as a result. It's also not going to return a number that requires more bits to represent than the computer can handle. Random does not mean unconstrained. It could be that some God or Force set up the rules in such a way as to favor evolution. I don't know. I don't believe it, but I don't know. Science can't address such a thing.

I think a lot of science is trying to overcome our natural prejudice. I was talking to a mathematician the other day who just also happens to be an artist. He said that in art, one of the things you have to do is train yourself to see what's really there and not what you think you see. I think science is a lot like this.

Science will never say there is no god. Science will never say there is a god. Science can't deal with anything outside nature.

#15358 09/25/06 04:27 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Thanks TFF,

A helpful post.

As for your following statement...

Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
I think a lot of science is trying to overcome our natural prejudice. I was talking to a mathematician the other day who just also happens to be an artist. He said that in art, one of the things you have to do is train yourself to see what's really there and not what you think you see. I think science is a lot like this.
... I agree with this totally. The human mind has an incredible ability to see patterns where there are none. As a man of faith I am particularly aware of this - Where I may see an answer to prayer or any instance where the natural order of physics appears to be impacted, then I have to contend with the fact that my mind may just be seeing a pattern where there is in fact just a coincidental occurence. It's difficult.

I often see the scientific approach showing us things that run absolutely counter to intuition.

I'm currently involved in Management Information at work and when we focus the MI on an issue, the picture is often very different from the perceptions of managers. This scientific approach to business intelligence allows us to make real objective decisions and the results are sometimes startling.

I hate to have to admit it but our perception cannot really be trusted.

Regards,

Blacknad.

#15359 09/25/06 08:36 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
blacknad posted:
My belief is that most people come to a conclusion about evolution long before they sufficiently understand the evidence. This then impacts the way they actually come to the evidence.

How true.
Most people are indoctrinated into that "scientific" belief system.

Many do see the truth that evolutionism doesn't work.

#15360 09/25/06 08:51 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
I'd recommend a book called 'Freakonomics' for some amazing example of long held beliefs being exploded by very innovative uses of statistical research. Very readble too.

Blacknad.

#15361 09/26/06 01:11 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by trilobyte:
blacknad posted:
My belief is that most people come to a conclusion about evolution long before they sufficiently understand the evidence. This then impacts the way they actually come to the evidence.

How true.
Most people are indoctrinated into that "scientific" belief system.

Many do see the truth that evolutionism doesn't work.
As a working scientist, I don't see a real lot of people who were indoctrinated into any sort of scientific belief system (in the US).


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#15362 09/26/06 01:54 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
InFallibleFiend wrote...
"...mathematician the other day who just also happens to be an artist. He said that in art, one of the things you have to do is train yourself to see what's really there and not what you think you see. I think science is a lot like this."

Observation is a product of sense perception (the eyes) filtered through intellectual appraisal and determination. Thus reality is a subjective concept - individualised and dependent on the quality of sense perception and intelligent appraisal. What I see and what I think I see are essentially both matters of opinion. Two artists commissioned to paint the reality of a particular scene will invariably return differing perspectives and treatments.

The scientific method is also prone to this natural quirk. The scientist as observer - while aiming for objectivity - is hampered in this quest by the subjective nature of the human mind. While facts and figures supposedly speak for themselves - the interpretation thereof is subject to human (read subjective)thinking and treatment.
Hence why two scientists, equally eminent in stature, may arrive at widely divergent conclusions based in factual analysis.


Darkness is but the sum total of Creation inclusive of the Light.
#15363 09/26/06 02:17 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Hence why two scientists, equally eminent in stature, may arrive at widely divergent conclusions based in factual analysis."

Very true. There can be honest disagreement among people who are equally eminent. However, what spawned this conversation was a discussion about evolution and creation. There are staggeringly few scientists who dispute evolution. When you narrow it down to those who are actually considered experts in their fields by their peers, it's vastly smaller (perhaps 2 or 3). When you narrow it down to those who are disputing evolution based on something they know from their own fields, you get down to a weak, but possible, 1.

Creation promoters tend to be religionists who INSIST that they've "done their homework," and who then go on to make numerous statements so profoundly stupid and contrary to what evolution actually says and how science actually works that they themselves disprove that they've done an honest day's homework on the subject. All they can do is repeat the garbage they've found on websites like AiG or ChristianApologetics, or ICR.

There is controversy in the political arena, but there is no controversy among serious and eminent scientists on the subject of whether evolution is good science.

#15364 09/27/06 03:05 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
When you find two scientists that disagree about the melting point of hydrogen hydroxide let me know.

When you find to religious scholars, one Roman Catholic and one Shia Muslim that agree on who the one true holy scripture is let me know too.

Well actually tell my great great great great great great grandchildren. They certainly won't agree anytime before that.


DA Morgan
#15365 09/27/06 08:18 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
I cannot say with certainty that no two scientists will disagree about the melting point of hydrogen hydroxide - as that would require a survey of the complete population of scientists. I can however say with much more certainty that scientists of equal weight and eminence are disagreeing on other important matters - global warming readily comes to mind.

In terms of Catholic and Islamic scholars agreeing as to which version of holy scripture is the "one" that issue is not at the heart of the religious debate or divide. Islam has always been open to those that believe in other "books." Catholicism whose history is riddled with burning of books has, in the new age, adopted a more inclusive stance - though from necessity as it leaks members to other sects.

That we have great great great great great grandchildren will largely depend on political decisions on a grand scale. The ones currently being made does cause one to be concerned.


Darkness is but the sum total of Creation inclusive of the Light.
#15366 09/27/06 04:40 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
O
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
First, Fallible, this was not thread of Evolution vs. Creationism. I won't go into detail (because my long post in the "Genesis is NOT possible" thread covers it in detail), but I certainly believe that scriptural fact can coincide with scientific fact.

The original point of the discussion was, in fact, the relationship of belief and faith between science and religion.

My hope was to point out the absurdity of the combative nature of the opposing sides of this issue.

Historically, in both science and religion, men have created absolute standards which they insisted were true or correct, but were little more than belief, typically based on some observable data. While much of what has come in the past has given us the building blocks for what we know, or believe we know, today, nearly every absolute has eventually been proven wrong.

I have no qualms with intellectual debate, and in fact enjoy it a great deal, but much of what goes on in these forums is little more than a Clash of Titanic Egos, all certain in their own absolutes.

I would propose that nearly everyone go back and re-read what they have written in the past. I believe many of you will be able to find your own vanity, vitriol, and even cruelty.

I see very little intellectual debate, and a great deal of verbal bashing akin to the acts of cavemen.

In the end, rightness matters little if we lack the simple capacity for civility and kindness.


"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5