Ever changing science.

[Rize]

From the article: http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?x58436941

"Ten years ago, we all 'knew' that the giant planets formed by core accretion," says Boss. Ten years from now, he says, textbooks may tell a different story—that giant planets grew up in a hurry.

I'm one of those unfortunate individuals who took an astronomy class in college and learned about this planetary accretion model.  It sounded reasonable at the time!  And of course, it might still be reasonable ten years from now despite what this article says (or some variation of it as the article mentions).  Or perhaps, ten years from now scientific thinking on the matter would be completely different and I would be left with an incorrect view of the solar system's formation.

The point is, historical sciences change continually.  Scientists paint it as a refinement which increases the correctness over time.  Perhaps.  Yet if so much time can be devoted to studying and hypothesizing about an incorrect model until all of a sudden some new observations contradicts it, then when can we ever be certain of what historical sciences demonstrate?

Naturally, this stands in contrast to non-historical information in astronomy such as heliocentrisim which is directly observable and verifiable.

This is what I mean when I talk about a "snapshot" of current scientific thinking.  In a historical scientific pursuit, new evidence can change everything (just as in a court case).  Usually, new evidence simply bolsters the current case, but sometimes something comes along which suddenly changes the case dramatically.  So, why should creationists put so much faith in historical sciences if they have other reasons for believing in God?  They shouldn't necessarily believe creation science either since it is just as subject to revision as normal science.

So the question is, why isn't the Bible enough?  Why do we want to reconcile science to the Bible or vice versa so badly?

Please read and respond to my entire post if interested.  At least, don't break up the paragraphs and when you comment on one paragraph (if your respond in that manner), try and keep in mind what I was speaking of in the prevous one before moving on to the next one.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Rize
The point is, historical sciences change continually.  Scientists paint it as a refinement which increases the correctness over time.  Perhaps.  Yet if so much time can be devoted to studying and hypothesizing about an incorrect model until all of a sudden some new observations contradicts it, then when can we ever be certain of what historical sciences demonstrate?

Yes, you can't prove hypotheses in science. You can only disprove them. Special creation was the overwhelming explaination of biologists in the mid 1800s for the diversity of life. It has been soundly disproved by modern biology. You can hope that one day evolution will be overturned, but you cannot ignore the fact that special creation already has.

Naturally, this stands in contrast to non-historical information in astronomy such as heliocentrisim which is directly observable and verifiable.

Just like the fossil record, genetics, homology, similarity, selection, drift, mutation, migration, and mating system are all directly observable and verifiable today.

So, why should creationists put so much faith in historical sciences if they have other reasons for believing in God?

Creationists don't put faith in historical sciences, otherwise they'd be evolutionists.

They shouldn't necessarily believe creation science either since it is just as subject to revision as normal science.

That would be true if creation "science" was science. But it ain't. No field of science has the main premise that if the data conflicts with our ideas, the data is wrong. BUt that is exactly what creationists do.

So the question is, why isn't the Bible enough?  Why do we want to reconcile science to the Bible or vice versa so badly?

Creationists are not concened with reconciling science and the bible. They are concerned with trying to displace science with pseudoscience.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Rize
So the question is, why isn't the Bible enough?

Where in the Bible does it say how to find oil, or to build a computer, or to compute the proper trajectory for a GPS satellite? Thankfully human beings have a thirst for knowledge and achievement that far exceeds the limited capacities of the Bible writers.

Why do we want to reconcile science to the Bible or vice versa so badly?

Most people don't give a hoot. Only those whose faith is based on an overly literal interpretation of the Bible find any real need to reconcile the two.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
That would be true if creation "science" was science. But it ain't. No field of science has the main premise that if the data conflicts with our ideas, the data is wrong. BUt that is exactly what creationists do.

You missed the entire point of my post.  Probably my fault though.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Where in the Bible does it say how to find oil, or to build a computer, or to compute the proper trajectory for a GPS satellite? Thankfully human beings have a thirst for knowledge and achievement that far exceeds the limited capacities of the Bible writers.

I shouldn't have even brought it up.

Notice where I made a distinction about historical sciences?  Why are we so keen on making up (and believing) extremely detailed theories on things which have little bearing on our lives.  What's the chances of the theory of solar system formation benefiting us in any way?  (if it's even right)  At least SSF is a cut and dry theory and there are millions of stars and such in various stages of life to observe.  So even that isn't too bad.

This was posed mostly to Christians (creationists).

Just forget it.  I posted this too early in the morning

 

[Arikay]

Thats the entire point. Scientists create a hypothosis based on what they see, study it and then change it when what they see doesnt make sense. The more technology advances, the more accuratly we can make those predictions.

The thing is is that the bible doesnt change. The bible has a very old Snapshot of science. The bible also says the earth is flat (with references to the four corners of the earth). We know this isnt true, so why should we embrace something that cant change when new information becomes available?

Originally posted by Rize
From the article: http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?x58436941

"Ten years ago, we all 'knew' that the giant planets formed by core accretion," says Boss. Ten years from now, he says, textbooks may tell a different story—that giant planets grew up in a hurry.

I'm one of those unfortunate individuals who took an astronomy class in college and learned about this planetary accretion model.  It sounded reasonable at the time!  And of course, it might still be reasonable ten years from now despite what this article says (or some variation of it as the article mentions).  Or perhaps, ten years from now scientific thinking on the matter would be completely different and I would be left with an incorrect view of the solar system's formation.

The point is, historical sciences change continually.  Scientists paint it as a refinement which increases the correctness over time.  Perhaps.  Yet if so much time can be devoted to studying and hypothesizing about an incorrect model until all of a sudden some new observations contradicts it, then when can we ever be certain of what historical sciences demonstrate?

Naturally, this stands in contrast to non-historical information in astronomy such as heliocentrisim which is directly observable and verifiable.

This is what I mean when I talk about a "snapshot" of current scientific thinking.  In a historical scientific pursuit, new evidence can change everything (just as in a court case).  Usually, new evidence simply bolsters the current case, but sometimes something comes along which suddenly changes the case dramatically.  So, why should creationists put so much faith in historical sciences if they have other reasons for believing in God?  They shouldn't necessarily believe creation science either since it is just as subject to revision as normal science.

So the question is, why isn't the Bible enough?  Why do we want to reconcile science to the Bible or vice versa so badly?

Please read and respond to my entire post if interested.  At least, don't break up the paragraphs and when you comment on one paragraph (if your respond in that manner), try and keep in mind what I was speaking of in the prevous one before moving on to the next one.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Arikay
Thats the entire point. Scientists create a hypothosis based on what they see, study it and then change it when what they see doesnt make sense. The more technology advances, the more accuratly we can make those predictions.

The thing is is that the bible doesnt change. The bible has a very old Snapshot of science. The bible also says the earth is flat (with references to the four corners of the earth). We know this isnt true, so why should we embrace something that cant change when new information becomes available?

The four corners are metaphorical.  The Bible also says that the earth is a circle (the hebrew word can also mean sphere).  So you might say it's a flat circle, but that wouldn't have four corners either.  So you either have a contradiction or a metaphor.  Given today's knowledge of shape of the earth, which one is the metaphor, and the exact meaning of the word "circle" is crystal clear.

I'm well aware that science works precisely because of change.  However, in observational science, the incorrect theory is relatively short lived.  A science hypothesizes something and tests it.  Then it is either supported or it isn't.  If it is, more testing is done in various ways to increase the support for it.  This works quite well as evidenced by technology.

Yet the amount and kind of change in historical sciences is completely different.  And the lessons from various court cases (microcosms of the cases for historical theories in science) that were overturned tells me that I shouldn't place much faith in historical scientific theories.  It is necessary for us to have a justice system even if it is fallible.  It is not necessary for a Christian to adhere to a scientific case for the earth's history.

Naturally you will attack what we do have faith in, the Bible.  But as I said, we have other reasons for believing the Bible.  I've seen and experienced miracles first hand myself.  This doesn't prove the Bible of course, but it proves (to me) the existance of a spiritual realm and in my investigation of that, I've come to the conclusion that Christianity is correct (and this has been confirmed to me by various methods).

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

I'm still really confused by the distinction between "historical" and "observational" science. As far as I can tell, all science relies upon observational evidence with he possible exception of theoretical physics (though theoretical physics usually requires experimental evidence to cement theories that were developed through mathematical manipulation of existing models).

In truth, all observation is historical, because no matter what the method, you can not observe anything in the present - you can only see, hear, touch or taste it as it ws moments ago when the information began transmission. Light takes time to travel, so we cannot observe the Sun as it is now, just as it was eight minutes ago.

From what I have seen of astrophysics (I'm a quantum jock myself) everything they study is historical - even vastly so. Distant supernova aren't in existence now - they were destroyed billions of years ago, but the light from their destruction is just reaching Earth now.

Now I admit, it is hard to see any possible practical ramifications of understanding the correct planetary formation model of gas giants, but there is always knowledge gleaned in any study. Perhaps careful study of gas giant formation will lead to a better understanding of gravitational currents that may some day be used in the creation of some sort of technology. Who knows.

Regardless, however, scientists studying "historical" sciences use the same methods everyone else uses - develop a hypothesis, find a way to test the hypothesis, test it, refine it if necessary. This method (the scientific method) is the same regardless of whether you are studying quantum behavior of tau muons, the formation of the Solar System, the dynamics of gas molecules, or the evolution of humans.

Cheers

 

[Arikay]

The problem is that is the bible all metaphorical? If so, why are comments in it taken as scientific fact? Or is the bible completly true, and science is wrong? Or are there some metaphors and some fact? How do you know whats a metaphor and whats a fact without science? If the world was flat, would you say that the four corners was true and the round earth was a metaphor?

Many wrong scientific beliefs lasted longer than they should have, because the scientists were being held back. Why were they held back? Are people still attempting to hold them back now?

Actually im not attacking the bible, and I agree with a lot you said, in the last paragraph. Im just questioning things. In science, thats how they figured out many things were false or true, they questioned them and then based their thoughts on the answers/

What form of christianity? As there seem to be many different version of the same religion. Can you enlighten us on these events?

Originally posted by Rize
The four corners are metaphorical.  The Bible also says that the earth is a circle (the hebrew word can also mean sphere).  So you might say it's a flat circle, but that wouldn't have four corners either.  So you either have a contradiction or a metaphor.  Given today's knowledge of shape of the earth, which one is the metaphor, and the exact meaning of the word "circle" is crystal clear.

I'm well aware that science works precisely because of change.  However, in observational science, the incorrect theory is relatively short lived.  A science hypothesizes something and tests it.  Then it is either supported or it isn't.  If it is, more testing is done in various ways to increase the support for it.  This works quite well as evidenced by technology.

Yet the amount and kind of change in historical sciences is completely different.  And the lessons from various court cases (microcosms of the cases for historical theories in science) that were overturned tells me that I shouldn't place much faith in historical scientific theories.  It is necessary for us to have a justice system even if it is fallible.  It is not necessary for a Christian to adhere to a scientific case for the earth's history.

Naturally you will attack what we do have faith in, the Bible.  But as I said, we have other reasons for believing the Bible.  I've seen and experienced miracles first hand myself.  This doesn't prove the Bible of course, but it proves (to me) the existance of a spiritual realm and in my investigation of that, I've come to the conclusion that Christianity is correct (and this has been confirmed to me by various methods).

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Arikay
The problem is that is the bible all metaphorical? If so, why are comments in it taken as scientific fact? Or is the bible completly true, and science is wrong? Or are there some metaphors and some fact? How do you know whats a metaphor and whats a fact without science? If the world was flat, would you say that the four corners was true and the round earth was a metaphor?

Many wrong scientific beliefs lasted longer than they should have, because the scientists were being held back. Why were they held back? Are people still attempting to hold them back now?

Actually im not attacking the bible, and I agree with a lot you said, in the last paragraph. Im just questioning things. In science, thats how they figured out many things were false or true, they questioned them and then based their thoughts on the answers/

What form of christianity? As there seem to be many different version of the same religion. Can you enlighten us on these events?

The four corners thing is a single expression.  Metaphors don't tend to be entire books of material.

Creationists (which this thread isn't about) simply accept the Bible as reliable.  I think they make a mistake in adhering to a particular interpretation is completely reliable.  There is usually some room for differnet interpretations.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Joe_Sixpack
I'm still really confused by the distinction between "historical" and "observational" science. As far as I can tell, all science relies upon observational evidence with he possible exception of theoretical physics (though theoretical physics usually requires experimental evidence to cement theories that were developed through mathematical manipulation of existing models).

In truth, all observation is historical, because no matter what the method, you can not observe anything in the present - you can only see, hear, touch or taste it as it ws moments ago when the information began transmission. Light takes time to travel, so we cannot observe the Sun as it is now, just as it was eight minutes ago.

From what I have seen of astrophysics (I'm a quantum jock myself) everything they study is historical - even vastly so. Distant supernova aren't in existence now - they were destroyed billions of years ago, but the light from their destruction is just reaching Earth now.

Now I admit, it is hard to see any possible practical ramifications of understanding the correct planetary formation model of gas giants, but there is always knowledge gleaned in any study. Perhaps careful study of gas giant formation will lead to a better understanding of gravitational currents that may some day be used in the creation of some sort of technology. Who knows.

Regardless, however, scientists studying "historical" sciences use the same methods everyone else uses - develop a hypothesis, find a way to test the hypothesis, test it, refine it if necessary. This method (the scientific method) is the same regardless of whether you are studying quantum behavior of tau muons, the formation of the Solar System, the dynamics of gas molecules, or the evolution of humans.

Cheers

Observational science is repeatable.  Historical science is not.  In other words, you can hypothesize something about the nature of salt.  Say that it kills slugs.  Then simply poor salt on a slug to verify.

Historical science will look at the slug's remains and try and determine if salt was poured on it.  It can never go back in time and reobserve the event that has already happened though.

Of course, in the case of the slug, since we know from experience that salt definitely does kill slugs.  We can safely conclude from a salted slugs remains that it was indeed killed by the salt.  We could even kill another slug and show that the remains are similar to the first slug.  But that single slug killing can never be repeated.

History cannot be repeated.  That's the difference.  Studying evolution is just like investigating a murder.  Even when someone is "proven" guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they are not always guilty. 

And a note about light.  The fact that the light that reaches us from outer space is old does not make it a historical observation.  Of course, the fact that it is not repeatable makes it similar.  Even so, it is repeatable to an extent since you get to watch many different stars in various stages of their lives.  So astronomy is sort of an interesting cross between historical and observational science.

 

[chickenman]

evolution still occurs today rize, so it is testable

we can test the mechanisms of evolution

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by chickenman
evolution still occurs today rize, so it is testable

we can test the mechanisms of evolution

Evolution takes place over millions of years.  It cannot be tested in any one person's life time.

Small "zoom-ins" of it (if it is indeed happen) can be studied directly, but you may very well be studying something else (i.e. speciation does not validate the theory of evolution).

 

[Arikay]

Well, its impossible to dirrectly observe any version of creation. So using the scientific process (just based on this data) we would choose the proccess with more facts behind it.

Originally posted by Rize
Evolution takes place over millions of years.  It cannot be tested in any one person's life time.

Small "zoom-ins" of it (if it is indeed happen) can be studied directly, but you may very well be studying something else (i.e. speciation does not validate the theory of evolution).

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

"Evolution takes place over millions of years."

True, but it also takes place in a single generation, which with fast lifecyle organisms can be quite quick (example anitbiotic resistant bacteria).

"It cannot be tested in any one person's life time."

Yes it can - in fast lifecycle organisms. Scientists test it all the time.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Arikay
Well, its impossible to dirrectly observe any version of creation. So using the scientific process (just based on this data) we would choose the proccess with more facts behind it.

I agree.  It's apparently not unreasonable for scientists to believe in evolution, however, I think far too much importance is placed on it.  If the world abandoned evolution right now, what would it lose?  Medicine and knowledge of genetics and biology would not change in the slightest because they are built on things that have been observed directly.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is not evolution.  At least, according to AiG.  They said that some bacteria samples (frozen I think) were thawed out from the time before we even used antibiotics, and they have the same genes necessesary for the shifting resistance.  Or something to that effect.

I don't want to get into this "defend creationism" game again though.

 

[Jerry Smith]

You have two separate criticisms of evolution here, Rize. The first is that it is a historical science.

It is true that the historical events explained by evolution are non-repeatable, and only indirectly observable. However, the mechanisms of evolution used to explain those events are repeatable and directly observable. It is this that has made neodarwinism the raging success that it is today. It was known even before Darwin that life has changed dramatically over the ages - that's not a big deal. The big deal is explaining the "how" of it.

The second criticism is that evolution doesn't really "change anything" (of practical value), such as medicine, and knowledge of genetics. This is untrue, but it is true that many of the same advances could have been made in both areas without an understanding of evolution. Some might have taken longer.

Now, tell us the "real world" application of relativity. There has yet to be any, and relativity is almost as old as evolution. Yet it is not dismissed because it does not give us immediate practical value. It is likely that the understanding of relativity that we have will have impact on future scientific discoveries (or even current ones, for which technological application has yet to be developed). Science is ultimately about explaining nature. People like science because an explanation of nature makes it easier to direct natural forces to meet our personal needs. Evolution and relativity do not lose scientific value (as correct explanations) simply because they don't have as much (exclusive) practical value in the present as other scientific findings do. Even if they never have much (exclusive) practical value, their scientific value as explanations of what we find in nature will persist.

As to whether antibiotic resistance is evolution - it most assuredly is. I'd be interested to see AiG's claims that you mention. Most likely, what they have found is only that ancient microorganisms can rapidly evolve antibiotic resistance in the same way that modern ones can. No big suprise.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
You have two separate criticisms of evolution here, Rize. The first is that it is a historical science.

It is true that the historical events explained by evolution are non-repeatable, and only indirectly observable. However, the mechanisms of evolution used to explain those events are repeatable and directly observable. It is this that has made neodarwinism the raging success that it is today. It was known even before Darwin that life has changed dramatically over the ages - that's not a big deal. The big deal is explaining the "how" of it.

The second criticism is that evolution doesn't really "change anything" (of practical value), such as medicine, and knowledge of genetics. This is untrue, but it is true that many of the same advances could have been made in both areas without an understanding of evolution. Some might have taken longer.

Now, tell us the "real world" application of relativity. There has yet to be any, and relativity is almost as old as evolution. Yet it is not dismissed because it does not give us immediate practical value. It is likely that the understanding of relativity that we have will have impact on future scientific discoveries (or even current ones, for which technological application has yet to be developed). Science is ultimately about explaining nature. People like science because an explanation of nature makes it easier to direct natural forces to meet our personal needs. Evolution and relativity do not lose scientific value (as correct explanations) simply because they don't have as much (exclusive) practical value in the present as other scientific findings do. Even if they never have much (exclusive) practical value, their scientific value as explanations of what we find in nature will persist.

As to whether antibiotic resistance is evolution - it most assuredly is. I'd be interested to see AiG's claims that you mention. Most likely, what they have found is only that ancient microorganisms can rapidly evolve antibiotic resistance in the same way that modern ones can. No big suprise.

The first criticism remains valid.  It doesn't matter how repeatable the "mechanism" of evolution is, what is not repeatable is the scale in which it takes place.  You can empirically verify and examine the salting of another slug, but you cannot spend millions years observing ape-like creature evolve into homonids again.

The second criticism remains valid as well.  While it's true that evolutionary thinking may have spurred the study of genes, this does not make it relevant.  It might have been incidentally helpful, but that does not make it correct.

Relativity may not have real world application, but it is empirically verifiable and thus worth of using (and as you described your self, relativity may very well have practical use in the future).

However, evolution is merely a theory of origins.  What is important to science is how things work now.  I don't argue with the study of evolution as a curiosity though.  And, assuming it's true, it could possibly have some affect on medicine... but don't try them out on me.  I'd hate to have some "vestigial" organ removed and find out later what it was good for.

 

[notto]

Rize,

Do you understand why they pick certain animals over others for medical reasearch?

 

[Freodin]

Can´t leave it, heh, Rize?

Evolution has the same relevance for our search for knowledge as any other field in science.

A few hundred years ago, research into the topic of "cold" was regarded as useless - at most a thing of some entertainment value.
Yet people kept on doing it, out of pure curiosity.

And as the bits and pieces unfolded, it was discovered that it was in fact usefull - so usefull that our whole modern society is based on this topic.

Conclusion: there is no such thing as useless knowledge.