Who invented Science?

I stumbled into the evolution/creation thread and I wonder is anyone interested in discussing science in here. I dont think I'll get any argument that science is a human invention, even though it is worshiped and served like a pagan god. Science is about tools, its first and foremost a philosophy, originally it was called natural philosophy. The term 'science' is a word that simply means 'to know', there are two kinds of knowledge. The kind you know intellectually (theory) and the kind you experience (practice). Science is the kind you experience. Scientific theory is just established facts organized systematicly. Eventually these theories can be so well established that they are called laws, like gravity.

Mechanical aid

Francis Bacon developed the inductive approach to science as a systematic philosophy. Discrepancies in our perception of the world of sense have to be addressed using inductive reasoning. He believed that “Our only remaining hope and salvation is to begin the whole labour of the mind again; not leaving it to itself, but directing it perpetually from the very first, and attaining our end as it were by mechanical aid. (Francis Bacon,1620). Science is about understanding controling the natural world. People are grossly ignorant about what science really is. If it can't be confirmed or denied by an experiment people think that means its not true. I'm constantly being attacked for saying that there is obvious, clear, and distinct proof for God's existance. Not only that God's divine nature has been revealed to everyone, its called natural revelation. At this point people start demanding empirical evidence like I'm supposed to come up with an experiment to prove it. There is no such thing as science, it is itself an intangable like numbers or time. Natural science on the other hand is what we learn about in school

Scientific evidence

Bacon developed the philosophy of natural science but it was Newton who actually established it. He did a lot of experiments with prisms. He wanted to prove that light was actually made up of seven colors. at that time it was belived that the colors from a prism were from the prism. Newton proved that anyone who did this experiment exactly like he did would get the exact same result and natural science was born. If thousands of years for now natural science has a Genesis account of its creation, Newton would be the first Adam.

“If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment - the experimentum crucis - were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory.” (White, the Last Sorcerer)

How do we know that evolution is true? How did they prove the law of gravity was true? How do we know either one of them is true? Lets ask the real question, how do we know anything for certain?
 

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
What is the law of gravity? "What goes up must come down"?

Actually, gravity is poorly understood.

Laws and theories in science are not some kind of heirarchy. Theories are descriptions of observations. As more and better observations are made, theories are revised, improved or replaced. Laws are mathematical expressions of well understood principles.

Observation - The sky is blue
Theory - The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering of light (using laws of physics in regard to light to support the theory).

Laws are also quite constrained, meaning that they only apply in a very narrow set of parameters.

Science in general neither tries to prove nor disprove the existance or God.

Science is NOT athiesm.
Evolutionary theory is NOT athiesm

Science does not prove anything with absolute certainty. Even the laws of thermodymanics. What science does very well is disprove things with a degree of certainty - not prove them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soyeong
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
"even though it is worshiped and served like a pagan god."

LoL, I loved this line.
What pagan god?
How is it worshiped?
Do they do blood sacrifices to it?
Is that even pagan? ;)

"If it can't be confirmed or denied by an experiment people think that means its not true."

It appears you are the one that doesnt understand science, as this is not true.
If it cant be confirmed or denied, then it is not part of science.
Like god.
which is why, science is agnostic.

"I'm constantly being attacked for saying that there is obvious, clear, and distinct proof for God's existance."

wow, you do? Like real evidence, and not just oppinion? You know you could probably win some sort of nobel prize or something.

"How do we know that evolution is true? How did they prove the law of gravity was true? How do we know either one of them is true? Lets ask the real question, how do we know anything for certain?"

We dont, thats why science never "Proves" anything 100%. However it does come to the best conclusion that fits all the current evidence.

Currently Evolution is the best (and only) conclusion that fits all the evidence.

The Law of Gravity is not always true, that is why there is now a Theory of Gravity, because the Law of Gravity was found to break down under certain circumstances.

I love this argument though, as it can end in so many questions for any person trying to shove their religion into science. :D


Oholiab said:
clipped the large quote
 
Upvote 0

ByGrace

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2003
1,577
37
54
Salt Lake City
✟1,928.00
Faith
Christian
No, not blood sacrifices. The sacrifices that are made to science are soul sacrifices. Those that want to embrace "scientific wisdom" and shun the wisdom of the One who made our puny minds is perishing in their own wisdom. That my freind is sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winepress777
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
really? Maybe you should talk to some Chrisitan scientists. Around here we have a few. Like Lucaspa.

Im sure he would be rather annoyed at you suggesting that he is shunning god for his scientific work. :)


ByGrace said:
No, not blood sacrifices. The sacrifices that are made to science are soul sacrifices. Those that want to embrace "scientific wisdom" and shun the wisdom of the One who made our puny minds is perishing in their own wisdom. That my freind is sad.
 
Upvote 0
My point is the experimentum crucis is considered all of science and therefore all of knowledge. That is how it came to be in the place of God as the source of wisdom and knowledge. Just as the Children of Israel fashioned a golden calf saying this is the god that delivered you out of Egypt, experimentum crucis is given the credit for leading Western Civilization out of the Dark Ages.
 
Upvote 0

Washington

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2003
5,092
358
Washington state
✟7,305.00
Faith
Agnostic
Just a note here, Ohoilab.

Shouting (using all caps) is really frowned upon in chat rooms and discussion forums--it's difficult to read. Of course there's nothing to stop you--other than the moderator--but I can assure you that many of us ignore such posts, and go on to more friendly replies. Your choice.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
If science is so bad then why are you sitting in front of a computer, in your air conditioned house, while your kids are watching sattelite TV waiting for their grandfather to come over (who is doing much better since the heart transplant last year BTW)? Why not go find a cave, a few pieces of flint and a couple of spears and live a life free of the horrible horrible influence of evil science.
 
Upvote 0

wblastyn

Jedi Master
Jun 5, 2002
2,664
114
38
Northern Ireland
Visit site
✟11,265.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
ByGrace said:
No, not blood sacrifices. The sacrifices that are made to science are soul sacrifices. Those that want to embrace "scientific wisdom" and shun the wisdom of the One who made our puny minds is perishing in their own wisdom. That my freind is sad.
How is studying creation "shunning God", if we didn't "shun God" (as you put it) then you wouldn't be sitting there on your computer.
 
Upvote 0

wblastyn

Jedi Master
Jun 5, 2002
2,664
114
38
Northern Ireland
Visit site
✟11,265.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Oholiab said:
My point is the experimentum crucis is considered all of science and therefore all of knowledge. That is how it came to be in the place of God as the source of wisdom and knowledge. Just as the Children of Israel fashioned a golden calf saying this is the god that delivered you out of Egypt, experimentum crucis is given the credit for leading Western Civilization out of the Dark Ages.
Well it did. As far as I know God didn't just tell someone how to use electricity, we had to figure that out on our own.
 
Upvote 0

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
How do we know that evolution is true?

Because we observe it.

How did they prove the law of gravity was true?

They didn't prove it was true; a law is just a mathematical description of a real-wrld phenomenon.

How do we know either one of them is true?

See above.

Lets ask the real question, how do we know anything for certain?

Well, we can sit there and end up paralysed by fine points of philosophy, or we can try and make sense of the world as we perceive it. The latter is what the scientific method is doing. If you prefer the former, then have a nice time in that cave of yours.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Washington

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2003
5,092
358
Washington state
✟7,305.00
Faith
Agnostic
My mistake. Had I been really paying attention it would have been apparent, as JohnR7 pointed out, that it's the font size you're using that's making your post difficult to read. If you want to change it, and have MSExplorer, try going to VIEW on the uppermost bar, then TEXT, and MEDIUM. perhaps that will do it.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Late_Cretaceous said:
If science is so bad then why are you sitting in front of a computer, in your air conditioned house, while your kids are watching sattelite TV waiting for their grandfather to come over (who is doing much better since the heart transplant last year BTW)? Why not go find a cave, a few pieces of flint and a couple of spears and live a life free of the horrible horrible influence of evil science.

I think your giving science credit for a bit more than what they are responsable for. People got along just fine before science came along. Esp. if they lived for God and He blessed them with health and a long life. The important thing is to dwell together in love.

If you add up how many people die from weapons of mass destruction, a gift from science. Or how many people die from perscription drugs, again a gift from science. So who is to say without the contribution of science more people would not live a longer life.

My wife grew up in a bamboo house with a straw roof and a dirt floor. They cooked their dinner over a open fire. She would have no problem going back to living that way. In fact a lot of people when they first come to America and see what a modern world is all about, want to turn around and go right back to the simple life they came from. When they find out it is not the paradise they thought it was going to be. Their simple life is most likely more of a paradise than this.

But who knows, maybe the "good old days" were not so good after all. But a lot of people sure seem to think they were. A lot of people long to return to a more simple life before science came along.

Even if science were to give us 100 years of life, so what. God is going to give us eternity in love and in a real paradise. Not a artifical man made substitute for paradise.
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
JohnR7 said:
I think your giving science credit for a bit more than what they are responsable for. People got along just fine before science came along. Esp. if they lived for God and He blessed them with health and a long life. The important thing is to dwell together in love.

John, the first kind of science invented by humans was medicine and agriculture. When humans first started to realize that one did not have to rely on what nature provided but they could plant and raise their own food and nor move with the seasons but live in permanent settlements.

So is it Gods will that humans really go back to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle?
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
LewisWildermuth said:
John, the first kind of science invented by humans was medicine and agriculture. When humans first started to realize that one did not have to rely on what nature provided but they could plant and raise their own food and nor move with the seasons but live in permanent settlements.

So is it Gods will that humans really go back to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle?

Genesis 2:5
before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;

Interesting that you think "science" gave us agriculture. If your going to make the claim, then perhaps you would like to present your evidence. It was actually religion that gave us agriculture because it was the priests who came up with the first calanders that really made it possible.

There actually was no seperation between science and religion up to Darwin. There would be no science as we know it today, if it were not for religion. Up untill Darwin, the whole approach or way of looking at creation had to be approved by science and religion. Even Darwin was a student of natural theology. The study of nature.

The first agriculture took place on deltas and flood planes. So there was really no need for a plow or for irrigation. That came later.

Also, the hunter gathers had medicine. They knew of the healing in various herbs and things that can be found in nature. Because God gave it to them and God showed them how to use it.

You run all of your so called medicine into a computer, and you will find that half of them are found in nature in a natural form. Go to china and you will find that the ancient art is still very much a part of things. If you do not want to go to the pharmacy and go to science.

Do you think for example that science gave us digitalis? Think again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
John, you are confusing science with scientists.

Science is a way of doing things.

A scientist is a person who makes a career of doing things scientifically.

Even priests can perform science.

You and I and everyone uses science somewhere in our lives, even if it is only in making a new recipe.

Even the earliest farmers were using science to get more food to grow. The crops we grow today are not the ones grown 100 years ago and those are not the same as they were 1000 years ago.

Lets look at a simplified example...

Farmer A notices that the crops that grew up through a cow pie left by one of his cows grew faster and better than the other crops in his field.

Farmer A forms a hypothesis that cow poop helps plants grow.

Farmer A then puts cow poop around part of the field and leave another part alone with no poop on it.

Farmer A finds that the side of the field with the poop grows better than the side without the poop.

Farmer A then forms a theory that fields with poop in the soil grows food better than fields without poop, but he still isn't sure if this works only on his field or if it will work everywhere.

Farmer A then gets with his neighbor Farmer B and has Farmer B try the same thing. The same thing works on Farmer B's field.

Now Farmer A is sure enough of his theory to tell all the farmers about it.

See, no white lab coats but science was done!
 
Upvote 0