Thank you. I try.
Again, you are correct in "perfect theory" but unfortunately the "theories" that you speak of are not presented as theories or are they open for dissent or are the measures of fact that supports them. They are presented as fact merely because the "scientific community" agrees that they are. That's how they are "sold."/i>
Theories, such as the Theory of Evolution, not presented as theories? What do you think they are presented as then? Of course they are presented as theories. I think your objection is more that they are presented at all.
All theories are open to dissent, but the problem you are facing is that your dissent is actually religious belief, not scientific evidence. You have no science to back your dissent. As such, it is rightly ignored by science.
Theories are the current best explanations for a series of observations (facts). They must accommodate all known facts, and not be contradicted by any significant facts. They also must successfully make predictions. The theory of evolution does all of these things. It is presented as a theory, not a fact, but a scientific theory is not something that was just arbitrarily cooked up. It has successfully emerged from a number of competing hypotheses by virtue of its explanatory power and its predictive power. That is the case with the Theory of Evolution. There is no competing theory, nor are there any significant hypotheses seeking to explain the same set of facts.
Is the "scientific community" an observable fact? You would think so considering how often it is presented as the "authority" on scientific fact we are supposed to swallow whole.
It sounds from that statement that you have a problem with science in general.
Do you remember the chart we used to look at in grade school on man's evolution from the ape? How much of that chart was fact? Not too damn much of it, but boy it sure is a great selling tool!
Actually that chart was just fine as far as it went. It was not designed to be a perfect summation of each individual step in the evolution of humans, but rather a general schematic. As such, it works just fine.
Science is NOT only science. The dissemination of science is filled with agenda and branding just like everything else the world is trying to sell us. Your puritanical view is naive.
From your comments I gather that your problem with science is that it contradicts some of your religious beliefs, and that it refuses to accept your beliefs as evidence.
Get used to it. Since the Enlightenment we are not required to kowtow to religious authority any longer, and many choose not to do so. You can't put Humpty back together again.
I'm not making a "scientific dissent." I'm making the point that scientific theories can very easily become religious in nature because pro-active "believers" create an environment where competing theories are not allowed to exist. Case in point, if you disagree that Global Warming is a man made crisis and is more likely part of the earth's continual warming and cooling cycles your voice is surpressed. If you want to study or discuss the possibility of the latter you will be blackballed by the GW movement. Similar to those old favorites like the coming ice age and global famine purveyors of my youth. If you have the gall to look at DNA and suggest that wow, this is pretty sophisticated stuff, what are the chances that it came from nothing? Hmmm? You do admit that science has a bit of a problem even coming up with theories about how it all started, right? Cause and effect? Something from nothing? Was the big bang when all the nothing came together and exploded?
I love the wonders of science. I think everyone should ponder the unfathomable magnificence of the universe that the Hubbell telescope has revealed to us, as well as the mind boggling explorations into the inner universe represented by things like the Human Genome project. And I DO NOT believe science should consider any religious belief. But why there is a scientific bias against seeing or even considering any evidence of "design" or intelligence in the fabric of the material universe is baffling to me. We can come up with entire theory systems from a few bone we've dug up out of the ground, but we look at DNA and the best explanation we can give is "given enough time DNA will just happen."
Of course without that belief, one must consistently use whatever evidence which is available independent of creation to verify the separation of science from creation. Exactly what material evidence have you found independent of creation to verify your findings?
melodrama BUMP
melodrama BUMP