Science and 'Religion'

[Micaiah]

Creationists don’t pretend that any knowledge, science included, can be pursued without presuppositions (i.e., prior religious/philosophical beliefs). Creationists affirm that creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Bible any more than evolution can ultimately be divorced from its naturalistic starting point that excludes divine creation a priori.

Sarfati J., "Evolution and Creation, Science and Religion, Facts and Bias" First published in Refuting Evolution.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830/

What part do presuppositions play in formulating scientific theories of origins.

 

[Jet Black]

we all have to sign a form saying that anything darwin says is the truth, and any data that goes against that must be by definition false, oh, and that God does not exist and that we all agree to eat at least one cute kitten per year.

 

[JohnR7]

What part do presuppositions play in formulating scientific theories of origins.

About as much of a part as presuppositions play in who we decide to get married to.

 

[notto]

That the laws and mechanisms of chemistry and physics are consistent and observable.

That is about all I can think of. Not really different than any other scientific theory.

 

[Jet Black]

That the laws and mechanisms of chemistry and physics are consistent and observable.

That is about all I can think of. Not really different than any other scientific theory.

"I might just put it, The universe is objective and understandable." I think observable would be implicit in that.

 

[And-U-Say]

What part do presuppositions play in formulating scientific theories of origins.

Sorry, but evidence trumps presupposition. That's why we believe:

- germs cause disease not demons
- static electricity causes lightning not Zeus
- rain comes from evaporated water not the storehouses of heaven
- the earth orbits the sun not vice versa
- etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[TeddyKGB]

What part do presuppositions play in formulating scientific theories of origins.

Whatever it is, Sarfati is probably categorically wrong about it.

 

[tocis]

What part do presuppositions play in formulating scientific theories of origins.

The same part they play in everything humans do. That's why the scientific method was developed - to provide a way to separate the facts from the presuppositions, so to say.

Creationism has nothing comparable. Much to the chagrin of the creationists out there, this is a major reason why creationism isn't held in high regard outside a very small (fundamentalist) part of the population in western civilization.

 

[caravelair]

i'm curious as to why the word 'religion' has quotation marks around it in the title of this thread. i don't get it. what does that imply?

 

[Hydra009]

It's because of the, "It's not religion, it's [insert euphemism here]" meme - the word, religion, is seen as having a bad connotation.

 

[caravelair]

that's what i figured, but it seems really strange for a fundamentalist to have something against religion.

 

[truth above all else]

What part do presuppositions play in formulating scientific theories of origins.

without a priori assumptions the present theories relating to origins would be taken as old mothers tales and myths, the presuppositions in question namely the hypothesis of uniformatarianism and the belief that the world must be very old gave birth to origins theory.

 

[Dannager]

the presuppositions in question namely the hypothesis of uniformatarianism

Scientific Uniformitarianism is an assumption that science operates under.

and the belief that the world must be very old gave birth to origins theory.

This is not an assumption that science operates under.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

without a priori assumptions the present theories relating to origins would be taken as old mothers tales and myths, the presuppositions in question namely the hypothesis of uniformatarianism and the belief that the world must be very old gave birth to origins theory.

to know whether what you are calling uniformatarianism is the same thing as the uniformity of natural causes (or the idea you can assume that forces operating today are similar to those operating in the past), you will have to define what you mean by uniformatarianism, which is a geological term, not one from the philosophy of science....

the principle that the world is very old is not a presupposition but a conclusion. This is an extraordinary problem with YECists, the inability to distinquish assumptions from conclusions, why is that?

i'm convinced from my discussions here that YECists have inbibed of the language of C. Vantil's presuppositonalism without any of the content.

 

[Loudmouth]

without a priori assumptions the present theories relating to origins would be taken as old mothers tales and myths,

Replace "a priori assumptions" with "emprical evidence" and you would be right.

the presuppositions in question namely the hypothesis of uniformatarianism and the belief that the world must be very old gave birth to origins theory.

So you don't think that water boils at 100 celcius at one atmosphere of pressure throughout the universe? Observations in astronomy and physics lead to the conclusion that specific events happen in a universal manner, such as the speed of light and radioactive decay. These are not assumptions, they are conclusions drawn from data.

The only assumption that science makes is that what we observe is real. It throws Descartes out the window and assumes that we don't live in a Matrix universe. If you think this assumption is a problem then you have larger issues than objecting to science.

 

[Adriac]

The only assumption that science makes is that what we observe is real. It throws Descartes out the window and assumes that we don't live in a Matrix universe. If you think this assumption is a problem then you have larger issues than objecting to science.

You could put this the other way and say that scientific inquiry only applies in cases where what we observe is real; if you can demonstrate this not to be the case, you can toss out scientific inquiry. As long as science continues to explain and predict (correctly) the way the universe works, it will continue to be correct.

 

[Loudmouth]

You could put this the other way and say that scientific inquiry only applies in cases where what we observe is real; if you can demonstrate this not to be the case, you can toss out scientific inquiry. As long as science continues to explain and predict (correctly) the way the universe works, it will continue to be correct.

Very good point. Before something can be studied it has to pass the "reality test", the evidence needs to be objective in order for the scientific method to be applied.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You could put this the other way and say that scientific inquiry only applies in cases where what we observe is real; if you can demonstrate this not to be the case, you can toss out scientific inquiry. As long as science continues to explain and predict (correctly) the way the universe works, it will continue to be correct.

looks like you are asserting the consequent.

science assumes a real world out there.

it is science if it is looking at the real world.

no, ethics(good), law(just), art(beauty) all exist in the real world and are not scientifically accessible, but that doesn't make the any less real, nor less worthwhile than those things that are scientific.

 

[fromdownunder]

without a priori assumptions the present theories relating to origins would be taken as old mothers tales and myths, the presuppositions in question namely the hypothesis of uniformatarianism and the belief that the world must be very old gave birth to origins theory.

Sorry, but it was Geology and not evolution that first suggested that the earth was older than 6,000 years. And this was dicovered by people who set out to prove the Biblical version of Genesis through studying the earths crust.

This all occured before some 70 years before Darwin published "Origin of the Species", which was based as much on Malthus and his own research as anything else. And don't forget, Darwin was studying to become a Minister before his voyage on the Beagle, and had quite traditional beliefs.

Oh, and one more thing, Mendel, who is almost the father of Genetics as we know it, was an ordained Minister, and had no presuppositions relating to the age of the earth.

Norm

 

[Yehren]

Sorry, but it was Geology and not evolution that first suggested that the earth was older than 6,000 years. And this was dicovered by people who set out to prove the Biblical version of Genesis through studying the earths crust.

This all occured before some 70 years before Darwin published "Origin of the Species", which was based as much on Malthus and his own research as anything else. And don't forget, Darwin was studying to become a Minister before his voyage on the Beagle, and had quite traditional beliefs.

Oh, and one more thing, Mendel, who is almost the father of Genetics as we know it, was an ordained Minister, and had no presuppositions relating to the age of the earth.

Norm

Mendel is the father of genetics. He, without having a clue about the actual cellular mechanism of genetics, accurately described how it worked, by inferences from the evidence of crossing plant varieties.

He is one of the great scientists of all time, and is so regarded by scientists. Oh, and he was a Catholic priest, and a firm believe in God.

Not to mention a scientist who was very interested in evolutionary theory. It's too bad Darwin never read his paper. It solved one major difficulty with Darwin's theory.