Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dimensio

Dimensio: "There is nothing in science greater than theory."

Except maybe experimental evidence?? There are certain things that are observational and should be identified as fact. Certainly this is a part of science that many pure Darwinists have forgotten. Seems they have misrepresented the theory as experimental evidence.

I am not necessarily endorsing ID but certainly we need to be spending more time on the investigation of alternate theories since many of the essential elements of Macro evolution are still lacking. Most aspects of this theory are still inferred.

Some have condemned the ID folks saying they are against science. That the proponents of ID will just throw their hands up at some point and say "we're done, no more study required because we have the answer". This is hogwash since the very foundations of science came about by men who desired to better understand God's creation. Personally, I think a view of science that is God centered would tend to motivate us further since most all God-fearing individuals realize we can never completely understand God nor His creation completely. I expect that some scientists presume a day will come where study will end because they have discovered it all! The very fact that we cannot and will not "figure it all out" is probably evidence in itself there is a creator. The created can never surpass or equal the creator.

Much of science is observational and hence we don't necessarily need to reproduce an event to describe how it occured or the results. For example, just because we can't create a chromosome doesn't mean we cannot distinguish the different types. This is why I think both sides of this debate are scientific. Granted, both sides use deception and bad science along the way but that does not mean they are not valid approaches to scientifically examine the existence of life as we now know it.


658 posted on 08/19/2005 1:44:38 PM PDT by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies ]


To: visually_augmented
Except maybe experimental evidence??

Experimental evidence is used to build theory. Experimental evidence alone is nothing special, it's just an observation. You use combined exprimental evidence to create theories.

There are certain things that are observational and should be identified as fact.

"Objects fall to earth" is an observation. It is a fact that objects fall to earth. It is not a fact that objects will always fall to earth. The explanation for why objects fall to earth and why we should assume that it will be the case that objects within proximity to earth will fall to it is theory. Theories are built upon facts, but anything that can be called "fact" is too simplistic to have any broad meaning in itself.
659 posted on 08/19/2005 1:48:28 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson