BICEP2-telescope
Figure 1. BICEP2 telescope at the South Pole
Posted on 01/04/2019 10:51:50 AM PST by fishtank
The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t
by John Hartnett
In the opening sentence in an article titled “Scientific Regress”, the author William Wilson remarks:
“Scientific claims rest on the idea that experiments repeated under nearly identical conditions ought to yield approximately the same results, but until very recently, very few had bothered to check in a systematic way whether this was actually the case.”1
The article is about science and the repeatability of scientific results published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
BICEP2-telescope
Figure 1. BICEP2 telescope at the South Pole
From the article:
“But evolutionary so-called science,
is more like forensic science;
it is weak because it is not subject to the same testable criteria.
As the famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr admitted:
“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science.
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.
Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.
Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”4”
Hartnett is quoting and commenting on this article:
Wilson, W.A., Scientific Regress, First Things, Institute of Religion and Public Life, firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress, May 2016.
Running a series of models made from conjecture isn't even pseudo science. At best, it is theater. Climatologist and their disciples do that best.
“The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t”
This much is true. Science is a process of learning and understanding and all too often what is passed off as science is actually political or religious dogma.
Science, like logic, doesn’t care about your feelings, your culture, your politics, or your religion.
Scientists, however, frequently pretend that science is solely owned by the left. And that’s the deeper problem.
The Left continually claims that there is “consensus” among the “scientific community” that humans are causing global warming. First of all, they only include the scientists who agree with them, so naturally there is 100% consensus. But most importantly, consensus is not even part of the scientific method. You can’t base a theory on it, and it doesn’t represent any evidence for or against. The ‘science’ they use most often is actually cherry picking—selecting and overinflating evidence which fits their pre-determined conclusion, and ignoring anything else. That is not how science works. It’s how conspiracy theories work.
Mostly because it is complicated and people are too trusting.
“...The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t...”
******************
IT AIN’T!
*****************
“the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.”
Yes, and it’s becoming a type of alternate religion or scripture.
It’s hurting biology in that findings are being presented as the focus of articles published, but the narrative is presented as key.
Many believe there are intelligent life forms on other planets..but we have yet to find any.
Still they believe.
“The science is settled”
It’s Faith-based Science.
Without SCIENCE you couldn’t post this nonsense!
Competing explanations also have to embrace historicity too.
This does, in fact, make for a weak science,, though still a medium susceptible of explanation. I don’t believe the gospel impels us to need to nail even the history of this world down to the “scientific exactitude” that we might like. The study and theory of general relativity tells us already that it’s possible, for example, to experience the interval between two points in our time line as starkly different intervals of time. Once we know it is possible, then to permit it of God as needed to resolve a paradox is an elementary act of faith. The age that raised such questions is the same age that raised the theory permitting such answers.
If there is “consensus“, there isn’t science.
Even more of a fraud is Neil Degrasse Tyson who has that condescending tone that just suggests he is full of it. Nye the so called 'science guy' is no better.
“It’s hurting biology in that findings are being presented as the focus of articles published”
The above should be “It’s hurting biology in that findings are NOT being presented as the focus of articles published”
Lol. If you think evolutionary “science” is bad try behavioral science. Lol.
Duh.
Youse a jeenus
“Science popularizers” as opposed to the old kind of scientist which was quite strict and accurate in his domain and was free to confess what his domain wasn’t, as well. He would be the first to say that he can’t pour God between test tubes and that theology is the only hope of answering such transcendent questions.
BioLogos invites the church and the world
to see the harmony between science and biblical faith
as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.
Articles on evolution:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.