|
|
|
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 01:19 AM EDT |
You are misusing terms.
Science does not deal in "facts." It deals in observations, theories,
hypotheses, and experiments.
By fact, you really mean observation or theory or hypothesis. I suggest you use
this term in the future to avoid appearing arrogant.
There is no such thing as a scientific fact. Period. It's an oxymoron. Science
can prove nothing. Absolutely nothing. It can only disprove or fail to disprove
something, thus supporting it. However, that is pretty good. The scientific
method works great, but it is always limited. We are always coming up with
better ways to explain things.
As far as creation/evolution goes, neither is experimental science. They are not
observable (nobody was there) and they are not disprovable, two key elements of
experiment science.
Think about it, what does an evolutionist do when something comes up that
contradicts an element of their theory? Do they throw it out? No, they just
tweak their theory to fit. A creationist does the same.
Both are HISTORICAL sciences, in which theories or models are developed to
explain what is thought to have happened. Experimental science comes into play
in testing ELEMENTS of the theories, but you cannot test the base beliefs. They
are akin to Forensics. While someone can make a very strong case that someone
robbed a bank, the judge/jury will never really know exactly (for sure) what
happened. There will always be at least a shadow of a doubt.
I cannot convince you that I am right and you are wrong and you cannot convince
me that you are right and I am wrong.
Again, this is not experimental science. What we have here is a philosophy on
which rests our choice of HISTORICAL, scientific model.
If you take the Bible's way of looking at the beginning, you will TEND to steer
toward creationism.
If you do not, you will TEND to steer towards evolution.
Both make perfect sense when viewed in the light of the a priori assumptions
that go into choosing that theory.
We are both looking at the same evidence, just through different interpretive
lenses.
We are both neither right nor wrong. That's the beauty of philosophy. We will
possibly forever disagree, hopefully we can do so cordially and with respect for
each other's position.
After all, isn't competition a good thing? Both theories have forced each other
to improve and not be content with "good enough."
Thus, please do not feel threatened when you hear someone avow creationism, and
please remember the fact that they are just looking at the SAME evidence through
different lenses.
--OpenSourceFTW
P.S. I do have authority to speak on this subject (Biology, B.S.), I'm not just
some random guy off the street XD. This happens to be a favorite subject of
mine. I'd be happy to engage you further on this subject, but this is obviously
not the best place to do it (waaaaay off topic, even for OT). :P[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 04:31 AM EDT |
It's a matter of belief, it's a religion. Fact is,
it seems to work (most of the time :-).
There is no belief
required, or even desired, since evolution (and all other ideas which are
well-established enough to merit the 'theory' designation) works in all in-scope
cases that have ever been examined. It's the cases that will be examined in the
future that keep the sciences humble, knowing that the sciences are not
religions, have no place for faith or religion in their work, and knowing that
all the currently accepted ideas (whether conjecture, observation, hypothesis,
"law", or "theory") are provisional, subject to being shown
incorrect.
Except that belief IS required. The theories work in
all in-scope scenarios that have been tried, true, but let's take the simple
example of you holding a pen up in the air. Will it fall when you let
go?
You BELIEVE it will. You HAVE FAITH it will. But you DO NOT KNOW IT
WILL. (In one of my M.Sc. classes, I threw a pen UP in the air, and then
described the arc it followed as a straight line. Reality is not what it seems,
which is what I was trying to show my fellow students.)
Science is the
belief that the future will follow the same rules as the past. And in reality,
it SEEMS that it always has (actually, scientists are beginning to think even
that isn't true!)
Science is a religion. A very successful religion, that
appears to have a 100% success rate, but a religion none the
less.
Cheers,
Wol [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
