"faith" in science

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti
I will attempt to reproduce unworthyone's experiment by praying that a bone evolves. I'll keep you posted.

Yeah that'll work. LOL.

There are rules and guidelines to prayer as there are with evolutionary theory.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Sure you can. Its called prayer.

I prayed and nothing happened. I asked seven other people to pray and seven different things happened. Your observations are not repeatable. Whatever prediction was confirmed by one successful prayer was falsified by eight others. Either that, or one can have no scientific knowledge that prayers are answered by God. Either way, faith and reason are qualifiably different things.

Right you know it evolved?

No, no one knows that the creature it belongs to evolved. The bones themselves are evidence in favor of common descent, but they are only a piece. Now that the theory of common descent is well supported by evidence, we can safely conclude that any given bones we find came from organisms that evolved from preceding ones.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Right.

I can expect to see prayers answered now because of past experience of answered prayer. When I pray and the prayer is answered I have evidence that the prayer supports my theory that....

God answers prayers.

Its Faith. I don't know 100% it will be answered but...I have evidence from previous experiences.

But all of this evidence is subjective. It isn't repeatable by an objective observer. Therefore it isn't scientific.

I don't know whether making your faith into science would be a "promotion" or a "demotion", but if that is what you are attempting to do, you should at least tell us what specific hypothesis we are testing for when we run one of your "prayer" tests...

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
But all of this evidence is subjective. It isn't repeatable by an objective observer. Therefore it isn't scientific.

Sure it is. Do you go to church? Is it still subjective if 5-10 people see the same thing you do? Or is it only "not subjective" when 5-10 scientists confirm a specific act that is not only reproducible but would be unnecessarily reproduced? Why make someone get a lump on their chest just to "see" if God would take it away again?

I don't know whether making your faith into science would be a "promotion" or a "demotion", but if that is what you are attempting to do, you should at least tell us what specific hypothesis we are testing for when we run one of your "prayer" tests...

Its neither a promotion or demotion. It's called life.

Prayer in general is reproducible and you can see its effects. The specific prayer is not reproducible as the prayer has been fully answered. Sure religion takes "more" faith but evolutionists use it all the same.

In fact evolutionists many times go into a testing procedure with the Faith that the outcome will be consistent with their theory and its not. Otherwise, you wouldn't perform the test, right?

Why propose a theory if you don't believe it could be true?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Starting from scratch: what is the hypothesis? If the hypothesis is that praying for people can take diseases away from them, then this can be tested. It takes a little more than saying a prayer and seeing if the disease goes away, because in order to confirm the hypothesis one has to be fairly certain the disease wouldn't have gone away anyway.

One thing to do is to set up a control. Get 10 people with diseases, a group of observers carefully recording the before, the prayer & the after. Only pray for 5 of them. You can do this as long as there are people with diseases.

results:
1 of the ones prayed for gets well and 1 of the ones not prayed for gets well. No support for the theory.

2 of the ones prayed for get well and 1 of the ones not prayed for gets well. Some support for the theory.

3 of the ones prayed for get well and 2 of the ones not prayed for get well. A little support for the theory.

5 of the ones prayed for get well and none of the ones not prayed for get well. That's pretty good support for the theory. Get another group of observers together and another group of 10 sick people, and repeat.

Just to be fair, after the observations are done and recorded if your theory turns out true, you can use it to go and get the other 5 people from the control group of each experiment well.

Before long your prayer science will have made medical science obsolete.

Or maybe I am guessing wrong about what hypothesis you say can be scientifically tested...

Give us something to go on.

 

[eldermike]

Jerry,

I am not getting in this, but, you keep using the word "repeatable" as if that were a standard of science today. Webster even took that out.

Blessings

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Give us something to go on.

Why does it have to be so complicated? Are you a Christian Jerry? Don't you believe in the power of prayer? Did you read any of my reply?

Why would you make a theory if you knew that it was fact?

In essence, you don't know its fact. It's faith. Otherwise you wouldn't have a called it a theory. You'd know the answer and would not need the test, correct?

 

[Jerry Smith]

I am not getting in this, but, you keep using the word "repeatable" as if that were a standard of science today. Webster even took that out.

Subject to independent confirmation by objective observers will suffice if by nature the observatin cannot be repeated.

 

[eldermike]

Jerry,

I can work with that. I had to attempt to write a definition of science as an assigment. It took several pages <grin> There is no definition.

Blessings

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by unworthyone

Why does it have to be so complicated? Are you a Christian Jerry? Don't you believe in the power of prayer? Did you read any of my reply?

If prayer can be demonstrated effective objectively, then I will have little choice but to be religious. If it can further be demonstrated that only Christian prayer is effective then I will have little choice but to be religious.

Why would you make a theory if you knew that it was fact?

You would make a theory to explain the facts you observe. You would consider that theory worthy of acceptance (belief) if that theory explained those facts, and predicted other facts that can be observed correctly. You would stop considering that theory worthy of acceptance if something that would have to happen if the theory were correct failed to happen, or if something that could not happen if the theory were correct did happen.

In essence, you don't know its fact. It's faith. Otherwise you wouldn't have a called it a theory. You'd know the answer and would not need the test, correct?

I think you are equivocating on the meaning of the word "know". Evolution is a theory that we know to be a correct explanation for the diversity of life. Yet, even though it is a well-supported theory and therefore represents the best possible certainty we can have about a natural explanation, it still leaves room for a sliver of doubt. Belief founded on rigorous empirical testing and observation is not the same as belief that is founded on devotional feelings, the presupposed infallibility of doctrine, a non-rigorous subjective interpretation of personal experiences or anecdotes about them, or anything else that we normally mean when we say "faith".

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by eldermike
Jerry,

I can work with that. I had to attempt to write a definition of science as an assigment. It took several pages <grin> There is no definition.

Blessings

You know it when you see it.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Subject to independent confirmation by objective observers will suffice if by nature the observatin cannot be repeated.

Do duplicatiing mutations work (without die-ing, necessary to evolve)&nbsp;and are they reproducible in the exact same manner?

This is the point.

I want to observe duplicating mutations in&nbsp;DNA that don't die off or return to their original state. I test it and I see it work. Okay now can&nbsp;I take that exact same organism and make it work again in the same manner or do&nbsp;I have to use a different setting with new organisms?

Obviously all&nbsp;I&nbsp;am going to do is&nbsp;repeat the process. Right? Or will&nbsp;I be able to return to the exact original state of that exact organism?

New test. New results. And sometimes, the test just plain doesn't end like you want it to.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Do duplicatiing mutations work (without die-ing, necessary to evolve)&nbsp;and are they reproducible in the exact same manner?

This is the point.

I want to observe duplicating mutations in&nbsp;DNA that don't die off or return to their original state. I test it and I see it work. Okay now can&nbsp;I take that exact same organism and make it work again in the same manner or do&nbsp;I have to use a different setting with new organisms?

Obviously all&nbsp;I&nbsp;am going to do is&nbsp;repeat the process. Right? Or will&nbsp;I be able to return to the exact original state of that exact organism?

New test. New results. And sometimes, the test just plain doesn't end like you want it to.

Are you asking if hereditary mutation can be observed? Yes it can, but you will be getting into a lot of technical detail if you want to know how it can be. If that is what you want, you would probably do best to look into it after having a few college level pre-requisites including biology, micro-biology and intro to genetics.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
If prayer can be demonstrated effective objectively, then I will have little choice but to be religious. If it can further be demonstrated that only Christian prayer is effective then I will have little choice but to be religious.

Why isn't everyone an evolutionist then?

it still leaves room for a sliver of doubt.&nbsp;[/B]

Right. Exactly what I said from the beginning. You don't know so you have Faith.

Faith is a religious word and because it has spiritual implications it cannot be used in relation to science. The definition is the same as long as it does not mean it is used in science.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Are you asking if hereditary mutation can be observed? Yes it can, but you will be getting into a lot of technical detail if you want to know how it can be. If that is what you want, you would probably do best to look into it after having a few college level pre-requisites including biology, micro-biology and intro to genetics.

No!

Do they return the duplicated DNA back to the original state or are they forced to use a different strand of DNA for the test? Understand what I mean?

 

[Raging Atheist]

"Faith is a religious word and that's why scientists, evolutionists, etc refuse to admit using it."

Uh, yup.&nbsp; Instead they use the intermediary word "art".&nbsp; Art overlaps both faith and science kinda like this:

Science -- Art -- Faith

Anyway, I would argue that it is art that accounts for the unpredictability (and predictability) in science.

What this means to all of you will probably vary.&nbsp; To me, it means that science is still valid, without being absolute, and that faith can be beautiful, even if its completely false.&nbsp; Hahahaha...

&nbsp;

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Why isn't everyone an evolutionist then?

Some have a presupposition that evolution cannot be true and reject evolution on the grounds of faith.

Others don't care about science in the first place and just never find out about it.

Right. Exactly what I said from the beginning. You don't know so you have Faith.

You need not have faith. You have confidence because of evidence, you recognize the possibility of error because it exists. You don't have "faith" that the possibility of error isn't really a possibility of error.

Faith is a religious word and because it has spiritual implications it cannot be used in relation to science.

You seem to think it can. But the way you used "faith" earlier (i.e. because there can be a doubt about a well accepted theory one must have "faith" in it) has no religious connotations anyway.

The definition is the same as long as it does not mean it is used in science.

??

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
Uh, yup.&nbsp;

Thanks for&nbsp;conceding that you refuse to admit using it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by unworthyone


No!

Do they return the duplicated DNA back to the original state or are they forced to use a different strand of DNA for the test? Understand what I mean?

You would probably do well to learn about the various techniques used in doing research on mutations, but no, there is no method for testing the same "strand" of DNA twice for anything. Matter of fact most testing of DNA is destructive. By the time you have extracted your data the material under investigation is no longer DNA.

Does this matter? I didn't insist you cure the same person more than once for your prayer test.. just that you used more than one person with the same disease.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
You need not have faith. You have confidence because of evidence, you recognize the possibility of error because it exists. You don't have "faith" that the possibility of error isn't really a possibility of error.

So lets just agree that Faith can mean: strong confidence in something, reasonable expectations and what not, but that belief evolution isn't those reasons because Faith&nbsp;is only&nbsp;a religious term.