What Is Science?

Freedom777 · Apr 3, 2003

Science, of coarse, involves observation using one or more of our five senses (taste,smell touch,sight,hearing) to gain knowledge about the world,and to be able to repeat the observations.Naturally one can only observe what exits in the present.
In this so called "scientific age" few people know what science really is or how it works.many think of scientists as unbiased people in white laboratory coats objectively searching for the truth. However, scientists come in 2 forms, male and female, and they are just like you and me. They have beliefs and biases. A bias determines what you do with the evidence,especially the way in which you decide that certain evidence is more relevant or important than other evidence. Scientists are not objective truth seekers; they are not neutral.
There are 2 world views with totally different belief systems clashing in our society. This spiritual conflict is rooted in the issue of origins (creation/evolution). Most people have the wrong idea about what the creation/evolution question involves. Instead of perceiving the real issue, they have been deceived into believing that evolution is science. It is not science at all.
IT is a belief system about the past. We do not have access about the past. We only have the present. We cannot directly test the past using the Scientific method (which involves repeating things and watching them happen) since all evidence that we have is in the present.
Everybody has biases or beliefs, by which one examines the world around them. For example i myself am a young earth creationist,my bias is this, I believe from the beginning that the bible is the infallible word of the Amighty God.I take that bias and interpret the world around me.Its important to realize that facts dont speak for them selves they are interpreted through your bias or beliefs. What emerges for the young earth creationist is a God honoring science.Another example is being a person who believes in molecules to man evolution or even more a person who believes that everything in nature can be explained by time and chance and natural processes.Both people could look at the same facts and come to 2 totaly different interpretations of those facts, obviously the later will emerge evolutionary science. I believe every person has biases or beliefs that means you and i and all the scientists to. So its easy to see why we both,(creationists-evolutionist) can have the same facts in front of them and come to different conclusions in the interpretation of that evidence. So the Creation-Evolution issue is not Science vs. Religion as evolutionists would like you to believe,but more accuratly its The Science of one religon vs. The Science of another religion.Lets be real these are two distinct world-views that will never be able to harminize themselves together.
One must realize that in the persute of truth you must understand both biases,its only than where you will see where the real issue lies
Models of science are both subject to change for both creationist and evolutionists. But the beliefs or biases that these models are built on are not. The problem is that scientists do not realize that it is the belief(or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretation,or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no god is involved (or even needed)
Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this.
It is important to understand that special creation, by definition, is also a belief about the past. The difference is that Creationists base their understanding of creation upon a book ( the Bible) which claims to be the word or the one who was there.(In the Beginning). Evolution comes from the words of men who were not there,(In the Beginning).

Most of this i wrote comes from Ken Ham's book "The Lie Evolution"
I have been very blessed by this and would recomend that all christians read it. Two sites that are a God send in understanding this issue of origins are www.answersingenesis.org and www.icr.org My prayer is that god will use this to help christians understand the nature of this spiritual war going on for the souls of men Amen In Christ Rob

Pete Harcoff · Apr 3, 2003

This argument sounds very much like the author is equating evolution with atheism. This is not surprising at all, since many creationists make this faulty assumption.

The other flaw in the argument is the author neglects to realize how the the theory of evolution appeared in the first place. It did not appear in a vacuum. Rather it was the conclusion of the examination of cumulative evidence that gave rise to the modern theory of evolution (which, btw, is not set in stone, but still subject to revision as new discoveries are made).

The reason the idea of creationism (especially young Earth creationism) was abandoned by science was because the cumulative evidence did not fit the idea. Period.

notto · Apr 3, 2003

Bias, faulty conclusions, poor methods, and poor research are weeded out in the scientific community through peer review, publishing, replication of results, and additional study. Creationists should try it sometime if they are concerned about bias. It is interesting that they complain about the things they do but do not participate in the process that eliminates what they are complaining about from their own practices. How do you think the hoaxes and such that creationists alway rail about have been caught? It surely wasn't through the research of creation scientists, but by other 'bias' scientists who discovered poor methods and frauds. The community of science is self correcting. To say otherwise is simply wrong.

SplitRock · Apr 3, 2003

Both Pete and Notto have made some good points on Ken Ham's assertions. One other point I would like to make is that he is confusing a Methodology based on natural laws with a Philosophy based on natural laws. Science is based on a naturalistic Methodology, not a naturalistic Philosophy. Divine cause cannot be analyzed by naturalistic means and is therefore not considered in science. This does not mean that scientists assert that God does not exist, or that everything can be explained by science. Intangible questions like "Why am I here," or "what should I do with my life" cannot be answered by science. Science can make no claims as to what is moral or immoral; what is right and what is wrong. This we leave to theology, philosophy and to society. In many ways science is like other professions in using a naturalistic methodolgy. Architecture, engineering, dentistry, truck driving, carpentry, steel work, firefighting, car repair, medicine, etc. all utilize a naturalistic methodology.. it does not make these professions "atheistic," anymore than it does science.

The Barbarian · Apr 3, 2003

Science, of coarse, involves observation using one or more of our five senses (taste,smell touch,sight,hearing) to gain knowledge about the world,and to be able to repeat the observations.Naturally one can only observe what exits in the present.

We can, however, learn about the past from evidence today. Hence, archaeology, astronomy, forensics, geology, paleontology etc. are all valid sciences.

In this so called "scientific age" few people know what science really is or how it works.many think of scientists as unbiased people in white laboratory coats objectively searching for the truth. However, scientists come in 2 forms, male and female, and they are just like you and me.

It turns out that male and female scientists are pretty much alike in terms of the way they do science.

They have beliefs and biases. A bias determines what you do with the evidence,especially the way in which you decide that certain evidence is more relevant or important than other evidence.

Actually, scientists have ways to avoid bias. One way is to accurately define beforehand what they are measuring, and then use statistical analyses to determine whether or not the results are significant. Science is generally more objective than many other things because the methodology tends to be objective. It's still possible to fool one's self, of course, but it happens less in science than in other activities.

Scientists are not objective truth seekers; they are not neutral.

Because accuracy is critical to science, you don't see much effort to change the results to fit bias. Besides, peer review would probably not permit the result to be published if anyone did so.

There are 2 world views with totally different belief systems clashing in our society. This spiritual conflict is rooted in the issue of origins (creation/evolution).

For Christians, it's not a problem, since we recognize that evolution is consistent with God's creation.

Most people have the wrong idea about what the creation/evolution question involves. Instead of perceiving the real issue, they have been deceived into believing that evolution is science. It is not science at all.

Since evolutionary theory depends on evidence, it is a science. A science is based on a theory, which is a well-tested idea, supported by evidence.

IT is a belief system about the past.

More specifically, it is a scientific explanation for a body of evidence. It is accepted by the vast majority of scientists because it is the only theory that can adequately explain this evidence. "Belief" has nothing to do with science.

We do not have access about the past.

No, that's wrong. We can easily learn about the past from the evidence available now. Would you like to learn about some ways we can do that?

We cannot directly test the past using the Scientific method (which involves repeating things and watching them happen) since all evidence that we have is in the present.

By definition, evidence involves things that have happened in the past. The scientific method is more than experimentation. It can also be something like making a prediction about the nature of fossils and then seeing what the fossil record indicates. It can be taking samples of rock from different areas and observing their characteristics.

It can be checking out the oxygen isotope ratio of fossils to learn whether the animal lived in fresh water or the ocean. It can be examining the DNA of organisms to learn what their parents or ancestors were. And many other things.

Everybody has biases or beliefs, by which one examines the world around them. For example i myself am a young earth creationist,my bias is this, I believe from the beginning that the bible is the infallible word of the Amighty God.I take that bias and interpret the world around me.

That would not prevent you from accepting what science has learned about the world. You just assume that it does. Most Christians have no difficulty with science.

Its important to realize that facts dont speak for them selves they are interpreted through your bias or beliefs. What emerges for the young earth creationist is a God honoring science.

Creationism is an unorthodox religious belief, based on a doctrine first introduced by Seventh-Day Adventists. It has nothing to do with science.

Another example is being a person who believes in molecules to man evolution

Whoa, that would be really strange! If I thought that evolution was about molecules turning into men, I wouldn't buy it, either.

or even more a person who believes that everything in nature can be explained by time and chance and natural processes.

That would be strange too, unless you included natural selection as a "natural process". Chance couldn't produce what we see evolution producing in the world.

So the Creation-Evolution issue is not Science vs. Religion as evolutionists would like you to believe,but more accuratly its The Science of one religon vs. The Science of another religion.

You haven't yet understood the difference between science and religion. Creationism, because it is based on religious belief, is a religion. Evolutionary theory, because it is based on evidence, is a science.

look · Apr 3, 2003

I agree that there is a conflict between the two sides. I need to point out that God is beyond the observable laws that govern our physical universe. The people like Frum, Notto, David Gould and many others are for the most part (probably willfully) ignorant of this fact. It was God who created our universe and it is God that has the power to override those laws at anytime for His pleasure. It is God that will have the last laugh, for he will be laughing at the people who refused to see Him in all of His works.

All of the physical that we can see, is only temporary, what is spiritual is forever. This natural that we all can observe, came out of God's realm, the supernatural. It is God who has said that He will burn up all of the works of fallen man and there will be a new earth, as if the earth changed it's vesture. Actually, the universe will be changed. His laws are higher than the laws He set into motion to govern our natural universe. God has the power to intervene or suspend those natural laws.

There are supernatural forces at play in each and everyone's lives. Whether or not anybody believes it, doesn't change that reality.

God said in His Word that the natural man cannot understand the spiritual for it is foolishness to him. It is through the Bible we should be looking at the natural processes at work in this universe. We all were destined to become the Sons of God but sin came into the picture and knocked us out of the picture. That's why Jesus came to die for us and pay for all of our sins. Now we can come to God in the confidence of what Jesus did on the Cross.

What does that have to do with this thread? Well, it has a lot to do with our perception of our physical world we live in. If you are born-again then you have the capacity to research in science with a view of the supernatural, but if you are not born-again, then you will, in all probability, look at things from the naturalistic perspective. Naturally. If God takes first place in your life, then you will be biased in that direction. The person who doesn't want to believe in God, usually does so to temporarily ignore accountability to God.

That is why there is a friction between the evolutionists and the creationists. It's really that plain and simple.

For all that are in doubt, creation science is worthy of research, evolution is just a theory, not a fact as they would spin it to be. There, that's my 2 cents.

notto · Apr 3, 2003

look,

You do understand that their are many scientists (most?) that are Christian, right?

You are correct that evolution is just a theory. A theory is all that can be hoped for in science. It is the name we give to the most well supported understandings in science, just like the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, the theory of plate techtonics, and the germ theory of disease. I guess those are "spun" as well as evolution and those that accept them are "willfully ignorant" of the fact that God could be fooling us or change these at any time.

Your post emphasises why science cannot answer the questions about God and does not attempt to. Evolution says nothing about God but describes what we find through observations of the natural world. This is what science does. If there is a theory that better fits the evidence, it has yet to be put forth. If there is evidence that would falsify evolution, it has yet to be put forth. Evolution does not rule out a Creator. To say it does is to misrepresent the theory.

Based on the criteria in your post, is there any science we should accept or could all the evidence that is studied just be a mirage placed their by God to fool us so therefore, we should give up trying to understand nature by studying it.

Arikay · Apr 3, 2003

Um, God Will Not have the last laugh. Because having the "last laugh" is a sign of arrogance. Satan supposably uses arrogance to control people. But god cant be controled by satan, so he cant be arrogant, and thus he cant have the last laugh.

However, it would appear that you want him to have the last laugh... Why?

Well, since you are stating that evolution is a theory may I remind you that YEC is a falsified hypothesis.

Just thought I would point that out.

3rd April 2003 at 01:30 PM look said this in Post #6

I agree that there is a conflict between the two sides. I need to point out that God is beyond the observable laws that govern our physical universe. The people like Frum, Notto, David Gould and many others are for the most part (probably willfully) ignorant of this fact. It was God who created our universe and it is God that has the power to override those laws at anytime for His pleasure. It is God that will have the last laugh, for he will be laughing at the people who refused to see Him in all of His works.

All of the physical that we can see, is only temporary, what is spiritual is forever. This natural that we all can observe, came out of God's realm, the supernatural. It is God who has said that He will burn up all of the works of fallen man and there will be a new earth, as if the earth changed it's vesture. Actually, the universe will be changed. His laws are higher than the laws He set into motion to govern our natural universe. God has the power to intervene or suspend those natural laws.

There are supernatural forces at play in each and everyone's lives. Whether or not anybody believes it, doesn't change that reality.

God said in His Word that the natural man cannot understand the spiritual for it is foolishness to him. It is through the Bible we should be looking at the natural processes at work in this universe. We all were destined to become the Sons of God but sin came into the picture and knocked us out of the picture. That's why Jesus came to die for us and pay for all of our sins. Now we can come to God in the confidence of what Jesus did on the Cross.

What does that have to do with this thread? Well, it has a lot to do with our perception of our physical world we live in. If you are born-again then you have the capacity to research in science with a view of the supernatural, but if you are not born-again, then you will, in all probability, look at things from the naturalistic perspective. Naturally. If God takes first place in your life, then you will be biased in that direction. The person who doesn't want to believe in God, usually does so to temporarily ignore accountability to God.

That is why there is a friction between the evolutionists and the creationists. It's really that plain and simple.

For all that are in doubt, creation science is worthy of research, evolution is just a theory, not a fact as they would spin it to be. There, that's my 2 cents.

look · Apr 3, 2003

3rd April 2003 at 03:50 PM The Barbarian said this in Post #5
For Christians, it's not a problem, since we recognize that evolution is consistent with God's creation.

who is "we"? Evolution is NOT consistent with Creation as described in the Genesis account. Everything reproduces after it's kind.

Creationism is an unorthodox religious belief, based on a doctrine first introduced by Seventh-Day Adventists. It has nothing to do with science.

How do you figure? Creation was taught by Moses from the Genesis account, as fact. Belief permeates our lives in whatever we do. The fact that evolution has not been proven, makes it a belief system. It takes faith to believe in that presupposition.

You haven't yet understood the difference between science and religion. Creationism, because it is based on religious belief, is a religion. Evolutionary theory, because it is based on evidence, is a science.

Again, evolution is nothing more than a belief system. To believe in evolution would be to take the account of creation as given to Moses by God, as false. There is no mixing of the two at all. Either one is true, or the other is true.

look · Apr 3, 2003

3rd April 2003 at 04:47 PM Arikay said this in Post #8

Um, God Will Not have the last laugh. Because having the "last laugh" is a sign of arrogance. Satan supposably uses arrogance to control people. But god cant be controled by satan, so he cant be arrogant, and thus he cant have the last laugh.

Really? Here is what He said;

Psalms 2:1. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2. The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
3. Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

And in reference to the treatment of the Jews;

Psalms 59:8. But thou, O Lord, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.

There you go...

Arikay · Apr 3, 2003

So god is arrogant. Does that mean god is a pupet of satan, as arrogance is considered a bad thing. I believe Jesus was very humble because arrogance was a bad thing.

So you think that evolutionists will get their just deserts?

No wonder you are unwilling to do your own research.

Mechanical Bliss · Apr 3, 2003

3rd April 2003 at 04:30 PM look said this in Post #6 

If you are born-again then you have the capacity to research in science with a view of the supernatural

No you don't because you would then cease to be a scientist.

Pete Harcoff · Apr 3, 2003

3rd April 2003 at 04:49 PM look said this in Post #9

who is "we"? Evolution is NOT consistent with Creation as described in the Genesis account. Everything reproduces after it's kind.

As per literal reading of Genesis, no. As per figurative reading of Genesis, yes.

Again, evolution is nothing more than a belief system. To believe in evolution would be to take the account of creation as given to Moses by God, as false. There is no mixing of the two at all. Either one is true, or the other is true.

Wrong. Evolution does not say God couldn't have or didn't create. It merely explains, based on observations of the real world, how that real world works. This is no different than any other branch of science. But if you insist that evolution is a "belief system" then so is gravity and chemistry and France.

look · Apr 3, 2003

3rd April 2003 at 05:29 PM Arikay said this in Post #11

So god is arrogant. Does that mean god is a pupet of satan, as arrogance is considered a bad thing. I believe Jesus was very humble because arrogance was a bad thing.

So you think that evolutionists will get their just deserts? No wonder you are unwilling to do your own research.

I'll bet you didn't read the context of the scriptures I gave you. Did you?

Arikay · Apr 3, 2003

Please tell me the context then.

Also, please tell me why you think god will have the "last laugh" at evolutionists?

Also, please explain to me how you arent ignoring gods creation by ignoring evidence that has been found in the earth and universe?

3rd April 2003 at 05:07 PM look said this in Post #14

I'll bet you didn't read the context of the scriptures I gave you. Did you?

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 3, 2003

I agree that there is a conflict between the two sides. I need to point out that God is beyond the observable laws that govern our physical universe. The people like Frum, Notto, David Gould and many others are for the most part (probably willfully) ignorant of this fact.

Here you are acusing others of ignorance and even willful ignorance again. Didn't anyone ever teach you any manners? God is indeed beyond the observable laws that govern our physical universe. The role of science is to discern and study those physical laws which is why God and the supernatural can play no part in science.

For all that are in doubt, creation science is worthy of research, evolution is just a theory, not a fact as they would spin it to be. There, that's my 2 cents.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Young Earth Creationism is a religious doctrine that was falsified by real science nearly 200 years ago. Creation Science is an oxymoron.

The Frumious Bandesnatch

 

 

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 3, 2003

You do understand that their are many scientists (most?) that are Christian, right?

Well, I know quite a few scientists who are either jewish, muslem,  hindhu or buddhist so I wouldn't say most.  However,  of the scientists I have known in my life, and I have known more than a few,  a majority are Christian and a relatively small minority are atheists. 

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Jephunneh · Apr 3, 2003

Daniel 1:4
Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Gracchus · Apr 3, 2003

Freedom777posted 3rd April 2003 at 09:28 AM :

It is important to understand that special creation, by definition, is also a belief about the past. The difference is that Creationists base their understanding of creation upon a book ( the Bible) which claims to be the word or the one who was there.(In the Beginning). Evolution comes from the words of men who were not there,(In the Beginning).

Would it be possible for you to present your eye-witness for verification of his bona fides and for cross-examination? I think not. It would take only a very dim bulb to expose that argument as specious and ridiculous. Of course if it were a dying declaration properly witnessed No?

look · Apr 3, 2003

3rd April 2003 at 06:05 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #13 As per literal reading of Genesis, no. As per figurative reading of Genesis, yes.

Ah, the old "literal" vs. "figurative" reading trick. You could do better. Let's see, You live in a literal world, right? Yep.
God is literal, right? Yep.

So where does the "figurative" come in? God is not a storybook character.

Wrong. Evolution does not say God couldn't have or didn't create. It merely explains, based on observations of the real world, how that real world works. This is no different than any other branch of science. But if you insist that evolution is a "belief system" then so is gravity and chemistry and France.

Again, you could do better than that. Is this all you could come up with?

In the real world, there is a complete lack of verifiable, ongoing evolution. Everything continues to reproduce after their kind. Mutations are genetic twisting of the original information needed to reproduce after their kind. they usually die within a short peroid of time.

How does the proven existance of gravity and a country compare with the lack of any ongoing evolution? The first two are observable, while evolution is not.

Therefore, because of the exercise of faith in it, it becomes a belief system.

on 4th April 2003 at 01:29 AM, Frumious Bandersnatch said this in post #16

Here you are acusing others of ignorance and even willful ignorance again. Didn't anyone ever teach you any manners? God is indeed beyond the observable laws that govern our physical universe. The role of science is to discern and study those physical laws which is why God and the supernatural can play no part in science.

Why study the effect but not the Cause of the effect? And why isn't God allowed to "play" any part in science? It was God who gave you something to study, is it not? Or do you think He can't interact with His own universe?

Evolution is a scientific theory. Young Earth Creationism is a religious doctrine that was falsified by real science nearly 200 years ago. Creation Science is an oxymoron.

The Frumious Bandesnatch

The "real science 200 years ago"? Oh please, ROFLOL!

Tell me another one! You are a funny man! That was a good one, frum!!!

On a more serious note, all of these years the evolution scientists have tried all kind of lab experiments to validate the evolution theory, but they couldn't make it work.

Creation science on the other hand, now they didn't make the same mistakes the evolution scientists (henceforth I will call them 'darwinites') made. The creationists actually went and built an biosphere to test their theories and they have managed to come up with a pretty good working creation model. They have been quite the through ones in their experiments. They can create any type of conditions ranging from the frequency of light, atmospheric pressure, oxygen nitrogen ratios, artificial eletromagnetic fields, in other words, they can recreate the living conditions of the pre-flood world. The biosphere is large enough for a body of water, fish, vegetation and different species of animals. The results they have gotten after a few generations are outrageous! But, alias, the darwinites have fought tooth and nail to discredit and harrass these undaunted thinkers.

Now, these are the guys I respect, because they are using science to prove that the pre-flood world was indeed as the Bible literally discribes and shows that evolution is false. Why do I say evolution is false? You can extrapolate backwards and get nowhere, the disappearance of the "missing link" keeps coming up. Whereas, with the young earth creationists, they can show by backwards extrapolation the exact same things as the Bible shows.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe in a type of evolution. Gasp!!!

I believe that when Adam was created, God made him perfectly. He had everything going for him. But then came the fall and entropy set in. Sin brings death. Because of the fall and the entrance of death, we have devolved from where Adam was. Our genetic information has been twisted from the first man's genetic code. We are the 'chimps' to Adam. We are going backwards because of the degradation of our genetic information.

This is only speculation on my part, so don't be asking me for references, however I suspect some of the lurkers are going to wonder about what I said and who knows...?

What Is Science?

Active Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Legend

Junior Member

Crabby Old White Guy

A New Species of Man®

Legend

HI

A New Species of Man®

A New Species of Man®

HI

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

A New Species of Man®

HI

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

A New Species of Man®

Similar threads