• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Scientific theories rely on apparent memory as evidence?

tonychanyt

24/7 Christian
Oct 2, 2011
6,061
2,236
Toronto
Visit site
✟196,390.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Understandably, an average person does not use the word 'theory' scientifically because the word has a colloquial usage. However, when a scholar explicitly uses the term 'scientific theory' not in the scientific sense, it is a wrong usage.

Prof Richard Swinburne said:

To establish a scientific theory, a scientist needs to show that the theory predicts certain events.
Right.

How does a scientist know that certain events have occurred? Well, either the scientist is currently observing them herself or remember having observed them or has had reports of others that they have observed them.
Emphasis added. Scientists collect data. They do not depend on their subjective memories of these data. They collect numerical measurements. They use these data to formulate their scientific theories.

How does a physicist know that certain events have occurred in a particle accelerator?

They rely on machines to detect them. These scientific instruments record a bunch of numbers. These data represent energy, momentum, trajectory, etc. They do not see these numbers directly with their eyes.

These three sources of our knowledge about particular events, one's own experience, one's memory, one's testimony from others provide the evidence that the events predicted by a theory occurred or rather since all of these source may mislead, it is apparent memory, apparent experience, and apparent testimony which provide the evidence that the events predicted by the theory occurred.
That's why scientists collect measurable evidence (think numbers) and do not rely on apparent memory.

Mary Baker Eddy called her religion Christian Science. I understand that people often use the word "science" in a way that has nothing to do with mathematics or statistics. I wouldn't do it. A scientific theory with nothing to do with numbers should not be labeled as such. Swinburne did not describe a proper scientific theory here as he had claimed. He used the term scientific theory wrongly.

I'd advise Christians not to learn Big Bang Theory and Evolution from Christian apologists.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: The Barbarian

okay

Active Member
Apr 10, 2023
352
330
New England
✟57,665.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
I'd advise Christians not to learn Big Bang Theory and Evolution from Christian apologists.
Amen!

I am guessing that I am in the minority, but I don’t find the apologetics project in general to be very compelling most of the time. In graduate school I decided I should learn something about it since I was a believer who was working with many non-Christians studying physics and engineering at the highest levels, but quickly became disillusioned.

I want to learn science from mainstream scientists with legit credentials, regardless of their religious affiliation (or lack thereof). Likewise for biblical scholarship.

Cheers.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tonychanyt
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,109
12,983
78
✟432,602.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'd advise Christians not to learn Big Bang Theory and Evolution from Christian apologists.
Might as well have Kim Jong Il advise you on democracy.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tonychanyt
Upvote 0