Science Becoming a Religion

Empirical science and religion differ in some fundamental ways. Scientists look for questions to ask. Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.

Science has theories that are subject to change. In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. A year latter J.J. Thomson overturned this theory by reporting his discovery that atoms were actually comprised of smaller charged particles he called "protons", "electrons" and "neutrons". Later research demonstrated that Thomson's particles were comprised of even smaller particles.

Religion has truths that are to be accepted without question. Those who question these truths may be treated as heretics.

Real scientists encourage questions. They even ask questions about established theories including aspects of the Theory of Relativity and try to find ways these theories might be wrong. Stephan Hawking demonstrated what a real scientist does when he suggested he had been wrong when he suggested that information cannot escape from a black hole. Physicists have a model of the atom they are satisfied with, but that hasn’t stopped them from checking to see if they might have missed something. They are currently colliding heavy nuclei to test the model.

Relgion gets its truths from prophets or dieties. Science has to do things the hard way by conducting repeated observations and experiments. Science cannot verify theories about physical processes that cannot be examined.

Some people who call themselves scientists want science to become a substitute for religion, or at least function more like a religion.. Some believe that science can provide an explanation for events in the distant past that is so accurate it cannot be questioned. Such a claim is illogical because insufficient information is available. For example, those who talk about greenhouse gases state they can precisely determine past temperatures by examining tree rings or ice cores. The width of tree rings depends upon availability of water and the amount of time temperatures are within the range the tree can grow in, not average temperatures. The religious fanatics of the greenhouse gas religion have been accused of practicing censorship of those who disagree with their doctrine.

The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth has traditionally been the province of religion. Science can only deal effectively with the present. It cannot observe or manipulate the distant past to verify theories. The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth is interesting and scientific studies of the present might provide useful information, but science cannot provide a definitive answer to the question of how the universe or biological life came to exist. Science can only say what might have happened.

Absolutely- the discussions really should just stick to the facts of science. One of the problems though with radiometric dating of course is the fact that it kinda leaves strict science and relies on assumptions- which of course can’t bew avoided as we obviously can’t speak from experiential experience about the past.

I do however think that anyone can discuss the facts that are presented, and I think we should discuss them, but should, as much as possible, just stick to the facts. One doesn’t need a degree to discuss issues that can be logically annalyzed.

[but technical decisions about the space shuttle should be made by our most knowledgeable technical people]

I dissagree- there are many fine minds who don’t have engineering degrees who can take the facts and come to intelligent conclusions based on the facts presented.

>>But I haven’t really seen creationists argue that all that decay took place in 6,000 years - generally the answer is that God created the isotopes in that their recent proportions, possibly to test our faith.

That’s actually pretty hard to disprove.<<

I agree- it’s hard but I don’t htink it’s impossible to discover pretty strong scientific evidences that might indicate this could or did happen- some would have different opinions about such evidneces of course, but science is about strengthening positions that are hard to prove.

>>Science’s job is to look at the available evidence and construct the best model and testable theories and to never stop trying to learn and explore.<<

You get no argument from me on this- I absolutely agree, and I believe that there are indeed strengths and evidneces to both positions

>>The only conflict come when we ask science to disregard evidence based on faith. Then the system breaks down.<<

Noone in ID is suggesting we do that- they gather scientific evidences that strengthen their position- the evidences aren’t religious based, evidences stands alone- outside of opinion- it’s our opinions of what the evidnece suggests that differs- the eivdnece itself is the science- anything beyond hte evidence, such as opinions- supporting one hypothesis or the other, is just that- opinions- opinions that either have the scientific evidences to strengthen them or not.. The arguments from ID for design have some strong scientific evidences that help shore them up, as does evidences for scientists who study microevolution- Macroevolution however rests simply on assumptions with very little to back it up scientifically, but that doesn’t mean the pursuit should end, it would however be ncie if it was explored and taught more honestly with both sides of the story being told, and with the scientific problems of both being discussed- It is when folks explore the problems that we begin to find solutions, but hiding the problems from people in education really is nothing more than teaching doctrine.

Ahayes >>Amen, brother in pondscum!<< Lol Good one.

The global warming issue demonstrates political efforts to control science. “All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists—a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

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.