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

To: BroJoeK
No, it isn't declaring war on science, it is rejecting false science.

And the definitions don't line up with science's method, testing and observing.

Yes, when science can test something then it can be called a fact.

When it cannot, it isn't.

So, evolution by it's nature is not testable and therefore cannot be considered in the realm of scientific enquiry.

An hypothesis is simply an opinion, which is not a fact.

Yes,as I said, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God and how the universe was created.

Both of the creationist and evolutionist view must be accepted by faith.

That is what the evolutionist cannot stand, since he thinks that he is being 'scientific'

142 posted on 11/14/2015 8:00:06 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]


To: fortheDeclaration
fortheDeclaration: "No, it isn't declaring war on science, it is rejecting false science."

All scientists, without exception, reject false science.
They also reject your attempt to redefine their work as false.
The truth here is that you know nothing about science -- zero -- except that you loathe and despise it, and wish to mock it by citing a misunderstanding of scripture as justification.

Instead, you wish to believe that science consists of one thing, and one thing only: observable facts.
But, as I have now explained, science is more than facts, it is also hypotheses and theories.
These are confirmable explanations of why and how facts operate.
Confirmations may come from verified predictions.

So basic evolution (descent with modifications, natural selection) is a confirmed theory -- confirmed innumerable times by daily discoveries and results.
Of course, it's true that many theories have been and will be overthrown when new data falsifies old ideas.
That's how real science works.

Nevertheless, after 150 years evolution theory is so grounded in fact, it's hard to imagine the basic idea might someday be falsified.
So, the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it "false science".
Your opinions are your own, and you are entitled to them, but science is still science, regardless.

fortheDeclaration: "And the definitions don't line up with science's method, testing and observing.
Yes, when science can test something then it can be called a fact.
When it cannot, it isn't."

Evolution theory is based on facts -- literal mountains of facts -- but long-term evolution itself is still a theory, not necessarily fact.
Yes, much of evolution has been observed in nature and in laboratories -- that much is fact -- but anti-evolutionists like yourself decry that as "just adaption, not evolution".
The fact is that "adaption" and "evolution" are the same thing, certainly short term, and doubtless also long term.
But, since long term cannot be directly observed, except by its results, that much remains theory.

fortheDeclaration: "So, evolution by it's nature is not testable and therefore cannot be considered in the realm of scientific enquiry.
An hypothesis is simply an opinion, which is not a fact."

No scientist is confused by the distinctions among "fact", "hypothesis" and "theory", but you obviously are.
So, once again: a fact is what can be observed and confirmed.
Much of evolution -- the part you call "adaption" -- can be and has been observed & confirmed.
The longer term portion of evolution which cannot be observed falls into the category of confirmed hypothesis = theory.
Theories are scientific explanations which have been confirmed, in this case my innumerable findings.

fortheDeclaration: "Yes,as I said, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God and how the universe was created.
Both of the creationist and evolutionist view must be accepted by faith.
That is what the evolutionist cannot stand, since he thinks that he is being 'scientific.'"

But natural-science -- modern science -- is not based on "faith" in any biblical sense.
Instead, it's based on an assumption: natural explanations for natural processes, period.
Science rules out, a priori any consideration of the supernatural.
Science leaves all consideration of supernatural processes to theologians, philosophers, ministers, etc.

Many scientists are men & women of deep religious faith who consider their scientific work to be investigations into how the Mind of God works in nature.
They don't consider their science and religion to be at war with each other.

145 posted on 11/15/2015 12:07:38 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | 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