Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not sure we can create a cosmology from the mythic explanations in the same way we look to modern cosmology. While the ancients likely had some vague ideas about the construction of the universe, mythic explanation is not rigid or meticulous in such details.
Since it is, by its very methodology, unable to be pushed as a primary or exclusive epistemic paradign, there's no point in assuming that it is.
Comes down to evidence. You should probably know that atoms were for a long time, seen as useful fictions, not actually real entities. But eventually they were demonstrated to exist.
So far, we can't have "creation science", since the methods of science can't determine something like creation. You can have a philosophical or religious approach to creation, but not a scientific one.
Since evolution is not about the origin of life, "evolutionary scientists" wouldn't be concerned with it. Even Darwin just supposed that God created one or more species of organisms from which the others evolved. But the discovery of self-catalyzing RNA and the finding that proteins do form abiotically, the evidence increasingly supports God's assertion that the Earth brought forth living things. We've come a long way since Oparin.
No, that's a major error creationists make. As Darwin noted, a miraculously poofed version of life would evolve just as well as the sort brought forth by the Earth. If God had done it the way Darwin thought he did, evolution would still work exactly the way we see it working.
Which has nothing to do with evolutionary theory which assumes life began somehow, and describes how it changes over time.
No, that's not what Darwin's theory is about. Maybe you could do some reading and find out what the primary points of Darwinian theory are. Hint: it's not about how life started or why there is something rather than nothing. Darwin assumed God created the first living things. I understand atheists embracing your version of evolutionary theory (if they don't know much about science), but it's irrational for any genuine Bible believing Christian or knowledgeable scientist to do so.
I think that you are "throwing out the baby with the bath water."
I'm no PhD level expert on the topic, but yes, I have studied some A.N.E. cosmology along with that of Genesis. The material in the video you've posted looks familiar.
There is no science in conflict with the Bible. There is a lot of science in conflict with the assumptions of creationists.
Except in common practice the line is much more blurred between naturalistic metaphysics and naturalistic methodology. The majority of pedagogy today is to focus on science education and "philosophizing" is seen as an unworthy pursuit unless it is in service of a naturalistic worldview. It may be understood by those well versed in the method that it is not a primary or exclusive epistemic paradigm, but at the typical schooling level such intricacies are lost which is why so many conflate acceptance of evolutionary theories with agnosticism or atheism.
What I am speaking to can't be evidenced by the very nature of the methodology. Science investigates phenomena, with a minimal ability to probe ontology. The atomic model certainly has experimental weight behind it, but to say that atoms exist is questionable. Especially since the atomic model seems to have been replaced by a sub-atomic particle model, which itself seems primed to be replaced by string/M-theory. In a physics classroom these ontological issues are broached and the instructors tend to be aware of the necessity of philosophical positions, whereas in a chemistry classroom the nature of the class insulates the material from the ontological questions and leads to the impression that these things are a lot more well understood than they are. Essentially, chemistry and biology classes are taught such that a 19th century rationalism that is unsustainable under modern understandings of physics is able to persist among those whose primary science instruction comes from primarily being exposed to science that relies heavily on the Newtonian physics model rather than modern physics models.
It's certainly true that the older models remain for calculation purposes, but there's a marked ontological difference between atomistic matter and sub-atomic particles and even more of a marked difference with the introduction of fields to the conversation. So computationally the models persist, but conceptually they are distinct.
From what I can tell, the deeper "we" get into modern physics the less unified the theories become. And at least some of the models must be purely fictional instruments given that they are internally contradictory, for example modeling light as a particle vs wave or treating an electron as a discrete entity vs a distributed charge.
They have actually been photographed.
Turns out, chemistry works rather well with 19th century understandings. Periodic Table, for example. The model predicted unknown atoms which were found much later in the 20th century. And Newtonian physics is used to navigate spacecraft around the solar system. BTW, light as particle/wave is not so much a dichotomy as two epiphenomena of a deeper reality.
Rationalistic 19th century understandings work, but have been demonstrated to not be fundamental. Every time science believes itself to have finally reached the pinnacle of its pursuit and finally discovered the primeval simplicity, a more complex reality is found to lie beneath it. These questions may not be directly about denying the existence of God, but ontology is fundamental to the question of God's existence as the question of what is fundamental about reality should differ for a believer than for a non-believer, and assumptions that underwrite good scientific research exclude any action by God by default. Which is where the problem lies, because people take the current scientific models as being evidence that those assumptions are true and fail to recognize that evidence gathered under an assumption can never be evidence for that assumption. I should reiterate, my issue is one of philosophy and specifically with philosophy of science rather than with the methods of science as a practice.See the Highest-Resolution Atomic Image Ever Captured
Scientists achieved a record level of visual detail with an imaging technique that could help develop future electronics and better batterieswww.scientificamerican.com
As real as your body is.
Turns out, chemistry works rather well with 19th century understandings. Periodic Table, for example. The model predicted unknown atoms which were found much later in the 20th century. And Newtonian physics is used to navigate spacecraft around the solar system. BTW, light as particle/wave is not so much a dichotomy as two epiphenomena of a deeper reality.
Weirdness at that level, doesn't mean that there aren't atoms or photons. And no one with any sense thinks any of this is about denying God.
The point is that they are. And they have measurable properties. Properties that allow us to predict things about them, and even predict undiscovered ones. Science doesn't depend on ontology.
Philosopher to Scientist: "Why do you insist on continuing with your incomplete phenomenological theories?"
That makes sense. It's particularly interesting that as Ernst Mayr observes in (I think) What Evolution Is, that it was once traditional for biologists to be well-acquainted with philosophy. I suppose that epistemology is of more interest to most scientists.
With the shift to fields, the question of what is becomes a bit more complex than being able to assert that discrete objects exist. The question isn't whether something exists that can be called an atom. While science doesn't depend on ontology, people build illicit ontologies from science and the way science education is approached reinforces materialist ontologies uncriticially.
No one is trying to get scientists to use ontologies in research, this is a discussion about how science is taught not how scientists go about research. Whether or not it is expressly acknowledged, everyone has some idea of ontology and metaphysics in general. Because little attention is paid to philosophy of science outside of higher academics(and there is a tendency to ostracize academics who go against prevailing thought) atheistic ontologies are functionally adopted even by theists with little critical thought being applied to the situation.
Epistemology is certainly a part of the whole thing, but ontology is still fundamental in discussion of religious matters. Either we begin with God as fundamental to being, or we begin with a self-existent material universe. The fact that naturalistic methodologies underwrite good research is too often seen as providing evidence to the metaphysics that truly cannot be separated from the methods, which allows atheists to essentially beg the question and leaves no avenue for response since philosophy is treated as illegitimate, and human ingenuity gives no real end to the models we may dream up.
That's the good part. You don't have to "shift to fields." Since they behave like discrete objects, you can treat them like discrete objects for pretty much everything.
Since chemistry is about the behavior of atoms, it kinda is. This is why scientists don't use ontologies in research.
For the obvious reasons....
Actually, there are no "atheistic ontologies" in science. And anyone familiar with science notices that Nobels go to "academics who go against prevailing thought."
Can't. Atheistic (or for that matter, theistic) ontologies are impossible in science. It's too weak a method to consider God or not-God. Of course, they are possible for scientists, but surprisingly, the science comes out the same regardless. If you thought about it for a bit, I'm sure it would be clear why that is.
I don't think you've given it much thought if you actually think so. Non-scientists are often way too impressed with science. It's not as all-knowing as it might seem.
That's an example of such thinking. It's perfectly O.K. to be unscientific for many purposes. And pretty much all the scientists I've met realize this. I am often unscientific myself.
"How do you know?" is pretty much the whole thing for investigating the physical universe.
If you were to accept that science is merely a useful tool for finding out stuff, it might be easier to think about the issue.
So you've never discussed politics, music, art, or sex with scientists?
So you don't think that a plumber or a biologist can function as an agnostic? How so?
That's kind of a wordy way to say that science requires no metaphysical assumptions other than that the universe is consistent and knowable.
Humans breeding with species could be why you're depressed, study says
A gene mutation was passed down to humans when they mated with a now-extinct subspecies in Asia 60,000 years ago, which makes people predisposed to mental health issues.www.dailymail.co.uk
