Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua
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.
You should at least play cards with an honest deck. Let me give you a real life example from yesterday:
My son had to leave last night for training in North Carolina. Two hours before leaving he called and told me he had lost his wallet 3 days earlier, had looked everywhere to no avail. With all his ID and credit cards and cash gone there is no way he could leave on a Saturday night to drive to North Carolina. We prayed about it. One hour later a woman knocked on his door and said she had found his wallet and finally tracked him down (his address recently changed). "No" material evidence? That's ridiculous. You may argue "insufficient" material evidence if you like, but "none"? You're playing with a doctored deck, my friend.
As above, if you make yourself deaf, you cannot hear.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=define%3Afaith
If you disagree, contribute your comments to the thread that we used to work out these definitions.
Not exactly. Just that science cannot be undertaken without some kind of world view; a view that governs the assumptions and conclusions as science is practiced.
Goldschmidt’s theory was a theory of evolution differing from previously accepted ideas. It was not at all a theory of non-evolution. That argument was settled long ago, and there is no scientific evidence that it was settled wrongly. Nothing in the research on fruit flies in any way refutes evolution (incidentally, geneticists like a certain species of fruit fly because it has only four pairs of chromosomes).
The links were dead; would you mind terribly posting the source URL? Thanks!
Sorry, I should have tested. They are all on this page:
Raw URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
You are a funny guy. You and your “eternity” bit. Good luck.
“Your definition of “faith” remains self-devised. Faith rarely rests upon “no evidence.” Such faith is typically qualified as “blind.””
I suggest you read the Christian existentialist, Soren Kierkegaard, who over a couple hundred years ago, essentially coined the term “leap of faith.” In a nutshell, he concluded that (1) religion, and Christianity in particular, are irrational, but (2) nevertheless advocated believing in both anyway on “faith.” He was smart enough at least to recognize (1) even if he was being silly in (2).
That's what I mean and what people mean about evolution being a pseudoscience. If total disproofs like that can be thus just totally shrugged off on a perpetual basis by the true believers, then you have to view whatever it is they're talking about as unfalsifiable (at least to them) and thus a pseudoscience by definition.
GW is clearly an example where politics has so taken over research that the whole field is taking on religious overtones. But I think that takeover is temporary. The nature of science is that it does self-correct.
Therefore, eternity should be no laughing matter for you. Some people plan for retirement which may equal 10 or 20 years or it may never manifest but don’t give one serious thought about where they will spend forever and ever. The soul never dies - it’s a spirit. On judgment day, you can’t plead ignorance because you were given every opportunity to know God’s Truth by His mercy. Hell is no myth. But for the grace of God, your next moment could be your last and that is something ‘you’ can’t control.
In the meantime, enjoy God’s glorious creations - the sun, moon, stars, air, the day, the night, the grass/trees, and all his natural food and your family and give thanks to Our Almighty Supernatural God.
Calling God’s Word mythical is the height of arrogance. You enjoy His creations but deny The Creator. Remember, The Creator has the right of ‘recall’ - so thank Him for this day that He has ‘given’ you.
To play the devil’s advocate, let me tell you that it’d illustrate better how science could degenerate into the realm of religion and philosophy by citing modern physics instead of the usual tired argument of “evolution ain’t science but religion stuff”.
Argue how SUSY or super string theories or quantum gravity are so far ahead of their experimental peers, they are no better than philosophical or religious musings of bearded old men in their citadels. You’d gain more followers in the “science is religion” camp by doing so.
You call THAT an absolute contradictory proof?!?
You clearly do not understand the scientific method.
bump for later reading
I'll bite.
In what way is time, in and of itself, a creative force...
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.