To my way of thinking science is defined by following the scientific method.
Of course there are a lot of folks out there without Ph.D.s who are scientists, while some folks with Ph.D.s are not following the scientific method.
Anyone can give opinions on science, but ones level of education must be taken into account. My opinions on quantum theory should not be taken very seriously, even though I have a Ph.D. -- I know absolutely nothing about that field.
Now one problem arises when Ph.D.s, well qualified in one field, opine in another field. Expertise in one field does not necessarily extend to another field. Another problem arises when experts jump off the train and ignore the scientific method. We see this in some of the leading creationists. By accepting religion as the overriding source of "knowledge" in their lives they cease to follow the scientific method. They are no longer doing science, and their judgment is no longer to be trusted. Most folks take a middle ground and separate the beliefs of religion from the methods and results of science.
I have seen several articles on radiocarbon dating, one of my fields of study, which posit a need to recalibrate radiocarbon dates based on the effects of the global flood on carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. This is an example of religion overriding evidence. So far there is no evidence for a global flood, let alone that it seriously altered the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. Folks who propose ideas like this are arguing from religious belief, hoping to twist the scientific evidence enough to somehow squeeze it into their required framework. The more twisting and bending that is required to make things fit the less reliability an idea has.
That is why the theory of evolution is considered to be such a strong theory. It could have been seriously damaged by the new field of genetics in the last 50-60 years, but it was supported instead. New findings have been fitting in quite well, with only very minor tweaking of the details. None of the finds since Darwin wrote 150 years ago have suggested that the overall structure of the theory of evolution is incorrect. That wholesale bending and twisting of evidence that is required to make, for example, the global flood fit the data, is not required for the theory of evolution.
So to summarize, scientists are those who follow the scientific method regardless of training or background.
[[I have seen several articles on radiocarbon dating, one of my fields of study, which posit a need to recalibrate radiocarbon dates based on the effects of the global flood on carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. This is an example of religion overriding evidence.]]
This is an opinion based on sound scientific facts- IF the flood did happen, and many have evidence that it did, then this event would have thrown off the calculations and or readings- that is a scientific fact- not a religious belief- At least get your accusations more factually correct- It is your OPINION that the readings do not have to be recalculated- while other’s opinions are thaT they should be for the reasons given.
[[By accepting religion as the overriding source of “knowledge” in their lives they cease to follow the scientific method.]]
And you have evidence that every scientist who believes in creation have ‘ceased following the evidnece’? It’s easy enough to make hte accusations- but a much different story when you’re called to the carpet to back up your claim with FACTS. Anyone can make any kind of accusations they like- but hte TRUTH will refute the false accusations every time.
[[That is why the theory of evolution is considered to be such a strong theory. It could have been seriously damaged by the new field of genetics in the last 50-60 years, but it was supported instead. New findings have been fitting in quite well, with only very minor tweaking of the details]]
This is another overoptimistic false claim- the biolgoical evidences do NOT more fully support Macroevolution- if anythign- they show more and more that it simply is biologically impossible- but thanks for weighing in with your OPINION on the matter- no matter how contrary to the facts your opinion may be.
Cool! So there's hope for me after all.
Anyone can give opinions on science, but ones level of education must be taken into account.
True enough. One's character and integrity must also be taken into account: The news is full of stories of people doing what they know is wrong and telling what they know is not the truth. And brilliant men rob banks too. (I'm not saying that brilliant men are more likely to rob banks, but that be brilliant does not prevent a man from having poor character.)
So I agree -- one's character and their familiarity, knowledge, and skill with the topic are good things to know.
Another problem arises when experts jump off the train and ignore the scientific method. We see this in some of the leading creationists. By accepting religion as the overriding source of "knowledge" in their lives they cease to follow the scientific method. They are no longer doing science, and their judgment is no longer to be trusted.
There's a bit of a strawman, here. I can't speak for all creationists, but I believe the Bible to be true. It's a faith. I know that gravity works.
Does my belief in the Bible prevent me from using the scientific method or from arriving honestly at a conclusion?
-Jeses