Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Merlin, you're continuing to avoid the question. You articulated the sentiment that "not everything works without God", you were asked to cite examples, and you have failed to do so.
Further, your understanding of "science" seems to be a little fizzy. No real scientist will present a theory as fact. That's way we call them theories. We may treat theories as tools for prediction, or as validation for experimental data, and they may be accurate enough for them to be treated in a workaday kind of way as fact, but they are subject to review, change, revision, discussion and so on in the event of new data and/or new understanding so that the theory may be improved. Scientists aren't satisfied to say "well, that'll do, that's set in stone so leave it alone. No really DON'T TOUCH IT! DON'T EVEN QUESTION IT! WE DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE IT, WHERE THE DATA CAME FROM BUT IT'S TRUE! 100% TRUE!"
Science accepts the possibility of all sorts of things being real - only 100 years ago the existance of DNA was unknown and unnessecary, but it was discovered and now genetics is a real, vibrant and productive area of science. The existance of superfluids would have seemed increadible 5 decades ago, but there they are. There's a difference between saying "You can't posit the existance of an entity or phenomena based on poor data or questionable evidence" and saying "That can NOT exist".
As for your comment which you claim was taken out of context, I would say there are no contextual circumstances which change the meaning of that comment.
Originally Posted by Merlin I only state that the scientific methodology is unwise and close minded.
You made an UNCONDITIONAL STATEMENT that the "scientific methodology" (sic) is unwise and close minded. A method which has uncovered truths denied by the Church for (in some cases) hundreds of years until it's unsustainable to refute any longer. A method which has provided all of the comforts, cures and conveniences around you, a method which has saved more lives, ended more suffering, fed more hungry children than anything else in history. So come on, have at you - justify your comment!
And you STILL haven't answered my original question and giving an example of something NOT working without God.
I can only assume from your failure to answer that you can not. Please, prove that assumption - backed up by data - wrong.
such as... thing is evolution is based on a very wide body of evidence from many biological sciences.
They are correct. Everyone, for example, believes in what we might call the axiom of induction - that is, that when two objects or events are "constantly conjoined with each other" we induce the latter from the former in further examples.
For example, when we push a billiard ball, it moves. We therefore induce, having done this many times, that the same will happen in the future.
You can't back up this principle using other principles - it is an a priori axiom.
evolution is certainly not based on faith, but evidence gathered, much like all good science is.
The author is saying that any axiom must be believed with faith since we have no logical reason to believe the axiom, we have only intuition. You might say our most fundamental axiom is that our intuition is usually correct.
not true. AIG has firmly stated that the bible is inerrant and literal. this is based purely on faith. the methods by which truth are obtained by science is the antithesis of faith.
What they really need to do is to state their axioms - the axiom of induction is eminently reasonable. Some form of uniformitarianism is reasonable as well.
"The bible is infallible" is clearly not a good axiom, so I would like to know - and have repeatedly, without getting a non-circular answer, asked people like AV on what they base this belief.
Further, your understanding of "science" seems to be a little fizzy. No real scientist will present a theory as fact. That's way we call them theories.
I agree, No real scientist.
and so, we indict the many on this forum who do.
Which is my point.
May I quote you when they do?
We may treat theories as tools for prediction, or as validation for experimental data, and they may be accurate enough for them to be treated in a workaday kind of way as fact, but they are subject to review, change, revision, discussion and so on in the event of new data and/or new understanding so that the theory may be improved. Scientists aren't satisfied to say "well, that'll do, that's set in stone so leave it alone. No really DON'T TOUCH IT! DON'T EVEN QUESTION IT! WE DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE IT, WHERE THE DATA CAME FROM BUT IT'S TRUE! 100% TRUE!"
I have been saying the same thing here for years.
As for your comment which you claim was taken out of context, I would say there are no contextual circumstances which change the meaning of that comment.
If you are following the threads of discussion, I would disagree.
You made an UNCONDITIONAL STATEMENT that the "scientific methodology" (sic) is unwise and close minded.
With regards to the many here who make claims of theory as fact, I stand by my statement.
IMO they make a mockery of true science.
A method which has uncovered truths denied by the Church for (in some cases) hundreds of years until it's unsustainable to refute any longer.
Are we now jumping from the would-be scientists on this forum to the church?
If you wish to hold me to their foolishness [the historic 'church'], may I hold you accountable for every nut throughout history who claimed to be in that group called 'scientist'?
A method which has provided all of the comforts, cures and conveniences around you, a method which has saved more lives, ended more suffering, fed more hungry children than anything else in history.
Nonsense!
Christians were doing such far longer and for more people than 'scientists' can even dream of.
'And you STILL haven't answered my original question and giving an example of something NOT working without God.
Yes, you're right.
And I won't.
There's no point of discussing things so far removed from your paradigms.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A method which has provided all of the comforts, cures and conveniences around you, a method which has saved more lives, ended more suffering, fed more hungry children than anything else in history.
Originally Posted by Merlin
Nonsense!
Christians were doing such far longer and for more people than 'scientists' can even dream of.
Give examples of christian cures before science came along. Plus you should pay attention to the word 'more', which is a fact.
__________________ "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky
Have you ever heard of an F-statistics, a student's t-test, a statistical test of an hypothesis?
Science always couches its data in p-values (probability of making a certain type of error in assessing the hypotheses), or confidence intervals. Probability always plays a role.
All or nothing? Not in good science. Science always carries with it the seeds for its own analysis. The second you see science presented as unquestionable you can be sure it isn't science.
That's why we have religion, for people who want absolutes. Black-and-white.
If that is what people want, they should avoid science.
But interestingly enough, when you look at that p-value, remember that p = 0.999 is very different from p < 0.001. It may not tell us what is at the end of the road, it at least tell us which direction we are heading.
the Null Hypothesis (Ho)
and
the Alternative Hypothesis (Ha)
Now if I read BrainHertz's post correctly he is doing much the same as I (and other "weak atheists") do which is actually rather scientific.
It goes like this:
When one constructs a test for any given "effect", be it the effect of a drug on a disease or the role of a diety the null hypothesis is usually set a "no effect".
So for the existence of God the most rational approach is:
Ho = No God
The goal here to test against this null hypothesis.
For most of us we look around, do our experiments, live our lives and realize, after a series of tests that things happened whether we considered God in the equation or not. If we look at intercessory prayer studies we see, essentially, no additional role for the "God Factor" , and we generally realize if we pray for things, as the old adage goes "Sometimes God answers 'no'", which is indistinguishable from God simply not being there to answer prayers.
So after collected all the data we can, some of us look at it and say, "well, I think I am more likely to commit an error if I reject this null hypothesis." So we fail to reject the null.
Of course we can't really assign too many significant digits to the p-value, but it is scientifically reasonable to fail to reject the null.
Now your point is correct, closing ones mind is detrimental to research, but opening ones mind so far that you can never fail to reject a null hypothesis will greatly increase the opportunities for error.
No. I don't reject any of them.
I have no need to.
For me, it has no impact on my life.
If you simply don't want to test something that's one thing, but that isn't why we test something (if it matters to you or not). If you fail to reject their existence, then why do you appear to disbelieve those who have run the requisite tests? Active belief in something without compelling evidence is hardly scientific. It is credulous.
New species are still being found on this planet.
Correct. But people have indeed been searching actively for decades if not centuries for Bigfoot, the Yeti, etc.
Obviously we cannot prove a negative, but after a while of concerted effort the positive appears less likely.
For me, science is not closed.
There are still things we can learn.
This is very very true. That does not mean that we are unable to make informed decisions.
Linear Mode
