The definition and value of science

[mindlight]

Scientists these days seem to think that they can claim a grand unprovable model explaining origins, cosmology, or even human nature, is science. That the process and probabilities with which their consistent theories explain things are sufficient grounds for estimating a thing to be true.

When did the empirical method and facts give way to speculations?

To what extent is science relevant to life, what is it helpful for, and regarding to what can it be ignored?

Should we mainly ignore it on origins but pay attention when it speaks of viruses and vaccines for example?

Since science can neither prove nor disprove theories of origins like the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and the grand theory of common ancestry why do we spend so much time discussing these life-irrelevant theories and so little simply marveling at the wonder of life, the universe, and everything?

Original comment from which this thread originated:

The world is spherical and orbits the sun. Australia exists and when I flick the switch, the electric light comes on. Some things are real and some things, like the origins of life on earth or the beginnings of the universe, are not accessible to the scientific method. The James Webb telescope produces amazing pictures about which we can only say so much. Grand cosmological models and the theories about the evolution of galaxies are less about facts that a fantastic light show that testifies to the glory of God.

In this context, we know that redshift means stuff is moving away from us. We can see clusters of lights far away that look very much like stars and even seem to obey the rules we can demonstrate in our own solar system and we can even make out some descriptive details. We can hear a background echo of some great cosmic event. We can play with fabulously complex mathematical models based on assumptions we can prove in our own environments. But the Big Bang, the dating of the universe, the cosmological model, and theories about the evolution of the universe are just rationally consistent speculative models. We have no way of proving them and the James Webb telescope does not bring us any nearer, it just shows how marvelously beautiful and wonderful God's creation is and it raises a few more doubts and questions.

 

[Halbhh]

Interesting post. Let me respond in pieces.

That the process and probabilities with which their consistent theories explain things are sufficient grounds for estimating a thing to be true.

When did the empirical method and facts give way to speculations?

It's true that many (but not all) in the sciences will indeed personally think of some theories, even sometimes some less well supported by unique evidence theories, as if more reliable, like known fact, than they ideally should. But, also, some don't do that.

So, for example, while a highly tested (in hundreds of tests/observations over almost 100 years) theory like General Relativity (GR) could reasonably be thought to be a correct (won't be shown largely false ever) theory in a (rather wide) domain, perhaps even everywhere outside of a black hole for example....
...in contrast to a highly tested and well supported theory like GR, some other theories are much less tested and should not be given any special credence other than merely being a theory that is a candidate, among competing candidates, to some day join the small set of highly tested and supported theories. Now, some will give too much credence to those not-yet-tested enough theories, as if they are more reliable than we've established... But many won't make that mistake. So, you have a mix of attitudes.

To what extent is science relevant to life, what is it helpful for, and regarding to what can it be ignored?

Well, in the most general definition, science is merely the process/work/effort of trying to understand how nature works. To find the laws of nature. (Or, in contrast for complex system modeling where a system (such as the working of the human brain for example) which isn't possible to completely understand just by known theories, to find strong factors that seem reasonably useful for being reliable to work often.)

So, science being simply the effort to understand how nature works, it's what you do when you try to adjust how much watering to water your yard in the summer, for example. You are doing science when you do ongoing experiments to find out how little water is enough to maintain what level of green.

Should we mainly ignore it on origins but pay attention when it speaks of viruses and vaccines for example?

Sure. For example, there isn't yet any convincing example of abiogenesis I've seen/read about. Show me one, and then I'd take it more seriously....meanwhile, it's merely a group of speculations/speculative theories. (but on the other hand, a big picture view about abiogenesis has more to say I think and I put that in post #3 just below this one)

In contrast, physics is much more able to get to the heart of things in a meaningful way, because we can devise experiments where we isolate a variable quite well, singling out just 1 or a few physical forces in a way that helps us figure out how those building components of Nature work. That's not at all the same as understanding the full complexity of Nature! But it's a wonderfully interesting and useful process of finding out building blocks, many of which we can use to very great reward. For example, using General Relativity, we are able to make GPS navigation much more accurate than we could with only Newtonian physics alone.

So, abiogenesis -- so far that field is mostly speculative and without much evidence past simple basic organic molecules forming, but has many interesting possible avenues to explore more, and may or may not ever result in well supported science (that can be repeatedly tested or observed) to actually show the formation of a self-reproducing basic life form some day. It may never get there, and we don't know. It's speculative in that way. (but I have one speculation below in post #3)

In very sharp contrast, the Big Bang not only fully agrees with the Bible in a more simple obvious way -- it just outright corresponds to the wording of the Bible no matter which way you read the text -- but is happens is also very strongly indicated by extensive observations in astronomy.

The Big Bang is not proof of God all by itself (which I think God would not allow, as that would preclude faith, which is to believe without seeing conclusive proof ahead of time), but it's certainly fitting Genesis chapter 1. Christians often point out how the Big Bang especially well fits most views of God as creator.

 

[Halbhh]

One more note about abiogenesis -- it happens if God designed for it to happen. A reasonable Christian guess is that since God made the Universe (all creation) "very good" (Genesis chapter 1)... "31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." -- that therefore we should not be even slightly surprised if we discover some future day that simple life forms arise out there in the "very good" creation that God made, which is 'very good' for life! After all, it's His work... His chemistry, His physics, right?

So, it's quite possible that abiogenesis happens out there, if God so designed nature to be good for life not only on Earth alone, but generally.

But Earth is very special, because it's has not only life-favoring chemistry alone in its favor as a home for extensive life, but very many additional favorable conditions that together in total make Earth seem rare and especially favorable to life long term, and that many astronomical observations in the last 20 years are showing are much less common out there among other planets than one might guess. For example, a strong magnetic field that protects us and the atmosphere from degradation from radiation and solar wind and CMEs, along with a just-right amount of surface water to be especially favorable -- with very helpful plate tectonics that help maintain our atmosphere -- and a very nice helpful arrangement of gas giants to both reduce dangerous asteroids heading towards Earth but together mutually cancel out the tendency of a large gas giant (like Jupiter) to tug a smaller planet (like Earth) out of orbit over time, forcing the smaller planet's orbit to migrate out of the habitable zone, and here I've only touched on just a few of the favorable conditions here on Earth that make Earth so good for complex extensive life over lengthy time periods.

 

[Jonaitis]

Why do people think that the scientific community is monolithic in its theories and models? One of the most accepted conspiracies among Christians is that scientists are intentionally lying to people to avoid being confronted with evidence pointing to supernatural phenomena, and that what they say they actually believe to be factual. Science is the observation and study of the natural order of things. It isn't about coming up with ideas and stating them as facts. Ideas, theories, models, etc, are always changing based on new information, and it shows that secular science is actually quite flexible. The whole point is to understand the universe and how it works.

Now, YEC creationism is a bit dangerous, if not more. It is a lens that interprets information, and does not approach evidence directly. It is bending what is being observed to fit with a worldview. We cannot get honest results that way.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

The value of science to satan, is that people have come to so much, believe and rely on science to explain God's creation instead of The Bible. That he (satan) has been able to use this trust in science, for deception on humanity against God and The Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

Scientists these days seem to think that they can claim a grand unprovable model explaining origins, cosmology, or even human nature, is science. That the process and probabilities with which their consistent theories explain things are sufficient grounds for estimating a thing to be true.

When did the empirical method and facts give way to speculations?

Hmm... you should know that "proof" is not part of science. You can have logical certainty only where you know all the rules and can deduce the particulars from the. In science, we have to observe the particulars and infer the rules. This might seem wrong to you, but nothing else we can do works as well for understanding the physical universe.

To what extent is science relevant to life,

Mostly where it shows us how to better get along in the world. Bottom line, it works. But that's not why it is. It's basically the drive to learn about this universe. It's true that it often turns up very useful knowledge that can have practical applications, but that's not what it's for.

Should we mainly ignore it on origins but pay attention when it speaks of viruses and vaccines for example?

Most of the time, you can ignore it, since physicians, engineers, and so on can pay attention and make use of it. If you don't want to just trust those guys, then you have to learn a little bit of the things they know. I want to know about that stuff in some detail.

Since science can neither prove nor disprove theories of origins like the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and the grand theory of common ancestry

It merely confirms these things by testing the predictions of theories. If the predictions hold, the the theory is useful and true. If not, the theory is abandoned for something that works. The real breakthrough on the Big Bang was the unexpected discovery of predicted microwave background radiation left over from that event. Common descent was first noticed by Linnaeus, who didn't even know about evolution as such. Later, things like the very large number of transitional fossil series and DNA analyses verified the fact. Abiogenesis remains uncertain, but since God said so, I believe Him.

 

[mindlight]

Interesting post. Let me respond in pieces.


It's true that many (but not all) in the sciences will indeed personally think of some theories, even sometimes some less well supported by unique evidence theories, as if more reliable, like known fact, than they ideally should. But, also, some don't do that.

So, for example, while a highly tested (in hundreds of tests/observations over almost 100 years) theory like General Relativity (GR) could reasonably be thought to be a correct (won't be shown largely false ever) theory in a (rather wide) domain, perhaps even everywhere outside of a black hole for example....
...in contrast to a highly tested and well supported theory like GR, some other theories are much less tested and should not be given any special credence other than merely being a theory that is a candidate, among competing candidates, to some day join the small set of highly tested and supported theories. Now, some will give too much credence to those not-yet-tested enough theories, as if they are more reliable than we've established... But many won't make that mistake. So, you have a mix of attitudes.

That seems very credible, some theories explain things better than others and withstood criticism better. General Relativity has seen off many challenges but is still standing and is useful to explain and predict things. That does not mean that someone with a bigger brain than Einstein or some new discovery by an extrasolar system spacecraft will not overthrow the theory in the future, but at the moment it stands as the best explanation, albeit mainly inaccessible explanation for normal people. That does not make it true but it is the strongest player in the playground.

Well, in the most general definition, science is merely the process/work/effort of trying to understand how nature works. To find the laws of nature. (Or, in contrast for complex system modeling where a system (such as the working of the human brain for example) which isn't possible to completely understand just by known theories, to find strong factors that seem reasonably useful for being reliable to work often.)

So, science being simply the effort to understand how nature works, it's what you do when you try to adjust how much watering to water your yard in the summer, for example. You are doing science when you do ongoing experiments to find out how little water is enough to maintain what level of green.

If science were just looking at God's creation and trying to work out gardening best practices from that I would have no issue with it. In that sense Adam started the scientific process by giving animals appropriate labels, Solomon continued the activity of examining and explaining the natural order, and then the Greeks developed the process further. But more recently it has become a grand colossus idolized by many as an alternate explanation for origins, the universe, and human nature.

Sure. For example, there isn't yet any convincing example of abiogenesis I've seen/read about. Show me one, and then I'd take it more seriously....meanwhile, it's merely a group of speculations/speculative theories. (but on the other hand, a big picture view about abiogenesis has more to say I think and I put that in post #3 just below this one)

Abiogenesis is a perfect example of pure speculation. Apart from electricity passed through inert matter producing basic amino acids, there is zero evidence for it. We are the only example of life emerging from inanimate matter and the explanation for that is a supernatural one. This is important because the grander theory of common ancestry depends on the naturalistic processes also assumed for the emergence of life in the first place. If this emergence and then development into viable, reproducing, complex organisms never happened then the development from that basis can also be questioned.

In contrast, physics is much more able to get to the heart of things in a meaningful way, because we can devise experiments where we isolate a variable quite well, singling out just 1 or a few physical forces in a way that helps us figure out how those building components of Nature work. That's not at all the same as understanding the full complexity of Nature! But it's a wonderfully interesting and useful process of finding out building blocks, many of which we can use to very great reward. For example, using General Relativity, we are able to make GPS navigation much more accurate than we could with only Newtonian physics alone.

I get the impression that physics did amazing things this last century but is now approaching the boundaries of what can be plausibly and usefully known.

So, abiogenesis -- so far that field is mostly speculative and without much evidence past simple basic organic molecules forming, but has many interesting possible avenues to explore more, and may or may not ever result in well supported science (that can be repeatedly tested or observed) to actually show the formation of a self-reproducing basic life form some day. It may never get there, and we don't know. It's speculative in that way. (but I have one speculation below in post #3)

No evidence, no examples of duplication, and flimsy theories. Abiogenesis is pure speculation.

In very sharp contrast, the Big Bang not only fully agrees with the Bible in a more simple obvious way -- it just outright corresponds to the wording of the Bible no matter which way you read the text -- but is happens is also very strongly indicated by extensive observations in astronomy.

The Big Bang is not proof of God all by itself (which I think God would not allow, as that would preclude faith, which is to believe without seeing conclusive proof ahead of time), but it's certainly fitting Genesis chapter 1. Christians often point out how the Big Bang especially well fits most views of God as creator.

I do like the Big Bang theory. It is a very attractive model. It demonstrates a beginning to the universe which supports the Christian account of creation. Many atheists had a problem with it because it broke the steady-state theory of the universe they preferred before it. Redshift, background echoes, etc seem like viable supporting evidence but given the timespans and our limited vision of the universe, we are still guessing on this. This theory does not overthrow standard 6-day creationism for the simple reason that it is ultimately unprovable. We just do not know if it is true or not.

 

[mindlight]

One more note about abiogenesis -- it happens if God designed for it to happen. A reasonable Christian guess is that since God made the Universe (all creation) "very good" (Genesis chapter 1)... "31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." -- that therefore we should not be even slightly surprised if we discover some future day that simple life forms arise out there in the "very good" creation that God made, which is 'very good' for life! After all, it's His work... His chemistry, His physics, right?

So, it's quite possible that abiogenesis happens out there, if God so designed nature to be good for life not only on Earth alone, but generally.

But Earth is very special, because it's has not only life-favoring chemistry alone in its favor as a home for extensive life, but very many additional favorable conditions that together in total make Earth seem rare and especially favorable to life long term, and that many astronomical observations in the last 20 years are showing are much less common out there among other planets than one might guess. For example, a strong magnetic field that protects us and the atmosphere from degradation from radiation and solar wind and CMEs, along with a just-right amount of surface water to be especially favorable -- with very helpful plate tectonics that help maintain our atmosphere -- and a very nice helpful arrangement of gas giants to both reduce dangerous asteroids heading towards Earth but together mutually cancel out the tendency of a large gas giant (like Jupiter) to tug a smaller planet (like Earth) out of orbit over time, forcing the smaller planet's orbit to migrate out of the habitable zone, and here I've only touched on just a few of the favorable conditions here on Earth that make Earth so good for complex extensive life over lengthy time periods.

If we cannot demonstrate the emergence of life in this spontaneous and naturalistic way then maybe it never happened like that. Maybe evidence from another world could demonstrate that primitive forms of life could indeed emerge in favorable conditions, I do not know, that is speculative. That does not preclude the possibility that we will find life on other worlds, that God has created, it just rules out that a non-supernatural cause can be postulated for that life given the evidence we actually have.

As you say the remarkable coincidence of life-supporting factors that occur on our planet, and in our solar system, with Jupiter hoovering up comets for us, might well be quite rare.

 

[mindlight]

Why do people think that the scientific community is monolithic in its theories and models? One of the most accepted conspiracies among Christians is that scientists are intentionally lying to people to avoid being confronted with evidence pointing to supernatural phenomena, and that what they say they actually believe to be factual. Science is the observation and study of the natural order of things. It isn't about coming up with ideas and stating them as facts. Ideas, theories, models, etc, are always changing based on new information, and it shows that secular science is actually quite flexible. The whole point is to understand the universe and how it works.

Now, YEC creationism is a bit dangerous, if not more. It is a lens that interprets information, and does not approach evidence directly. It is bending what is being observed to fit with a worldview. We cannot get honest results that way.

Agreed that the process of scientific activity produces provisional models to help us understand the natural order. Scientists themselves sabotage their own credibility when they speak with too much certainty about things they cannot demonstrate with the scientific method. Abiogenesis is the perfect example but also the whole model of common ancestry, and theories on the evolution of galaxies and stars.

I am a YEC for purely biblical reasons. Scientifically is not a provable or unprovable theory. Holistically for the whole of my life and reality, it is a better and more useful explanation for the gifts, dignity, and spiritual life of mankind and for how a universe so structured and beautiful came to exist.

 

[mindlight]

-
​

The value of science to satan, is that people have come to so much, believe and rely on science to explain God's creation instead of The Bible. That he (satan) has been able to use this trust in science, for deception on humanity against God and The Bible.

Various satanic deceptions are implicit in the pronouncements of many scientists though not necessarily in the actual conclusions of their activities. A healthy perspective would place science within a broader worldview.

1) For example, the idea that a lower being can evolve to be a higher being:

How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weaken the nations! For you have said in your heart, “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also on the mount of the congregation, in the recesses of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.” Isaiah 14

2) The loss of transcendence and the materialistic reductionism that excludes the unseen world:

Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can’t see—such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him. He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together. (Colossians 1:15-17)

3) Idolatry of what God has made over the Creator Himself:

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. . . . They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. (Romans 1:20-21, 25)

 

[mindlight]

Hmm... you should know that "proof" is not part of science. You can have logical certainty only where you know all the rules and can deduce the particulars from the. In science, we have to observe the particulars and infer the rules. This might seem wrong to you, but nothing else we can do works as well for understanding the physical universe.

If you truly believe this then you should speak with less certainty about things you cannot prove. You are discussing provisional models which cohere with scientific processes and give credible probabilities. You cannot say if what you say is actually true.

Mostly where it shows us how to better get along in the world. Bottom line, it works. But that's not why it is. It's basically the drive to learn about this universe. It's true that it often turns up very useful knowledge that can have practical applications, but that's not what it's for.

We share a common interest in the natural order and getting on within it. In the case of abiogenesis, I would suggest it has no utilitarian value whatsoever.

Most of the time, you can ignore it, since physicians, engineers, and so on can pay attention and make use of it. If you don't want to just trust those guys, then you have to learn a little bit of the things they know. I want to know about that stuff in some detail.

It makes no difference to my life if God created in 6 days or over 13 billion years nor even the methods he employed to do that. I am curious to know and given the levels of speculation may wonder at the definition of what constitutes an expert. How can a person be an expert about something they cannot prove or know for sure to be true?

It merely confirms these things by testing the predictions of theories. If the predictions hold, the the theory is useful and true. If not, the theory is abandoned for something that works. The real breakthrough on the Big Bang was the unexpected discovery of predicted microwave background radiation left over from that event. Common descent was first noticed by Linnaeus, who didn't even know about evolution as such. Later, things like the very large number of transitional fossil series and DNA analyses verified the fact. Abiogenesis remains uncertain, but since God said so, I believe Him.

Prediction to me means saying something before it actually physically happens not just showing that your theory has got this or that phenomena covered with its explanatory power after the event.

There are clues to the beginning of the universe in the echo of some great cosmic disturbance. There are too many missing links and speculative linkages for common ancestry to be considered anything better than a theory. Regarding Abiogenesis: - God created us from the dust of the ground, NOT - we emerged from it without His assistance as a result of the processes He had already set in motion within it. The Bible says Special Creation, you are suggesting Deistic naturalism.

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

 

[Tuur]

Scientists these days seem to think that they can claim a grand unprovable model explaining origins, cosmology, or even human nature, is science. That the process and probabilities with which their consistent theories explain things are sufficient grounds for estimating a thing to be true.

When did the empirical method and facts give way to speculations?

To what extent is science relevant to life, what is it helpful for, and regarding to what can it be ignored?

Should we mainly ignore it on origins but pay attention when it speaks of viruses and vaccines for example?

Since science can neither prove nor disprove theories of origins like the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and the grand theory of common ancestry why do we spend so much time discussing these life-irrelevant theories and so little simply marveling at the wonder of life, the universe, and everything?

Original comment from which this thread originated:

Science is a systematic method of inquiry in how things work. Humans have always made models of how they think things work, some good, some bad, and have applied them with varying results. Science adds systematic inquiry to the process, a way of separating good models from the bad ones.

The important thing to keep in mind is that every theory and even what we think of as scientific laws are models. Newtonian physics is a good model, but Einsteinian physics presented a better one. This is why science happens when results don't match the models.

Models are models, no more, no less, and aren't the thing itself. It. This isn't a slam against science, far from it. It's simply stating what it is.

The value of that systematic way of inquiry is all around us, from the food we grow to the machines we make to the buildings we construct to the way we care for the sick. That said, the business of science is in finding how things work. The trouble starts when we make more of it than what it is. If science had all the answers, it wouldn't have to go looking for them. And just because science can make a model that seems to work doesn't mean that's the actual way things are.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you truly believe this then you should speak with less certainty about things you cannot prove.

There is a real, non-zero probability that all the oxygen atoms in the room will go to one corner and suffocate you. I can confidently assert that will never happen. We live our lives like that, assuming things that are not proveable, because the are so likely that it's foolish to think otherwise. Las Vegas gets rich on people who can't figure this out.

We share a common interest in the natural order and getting on within it. In the case of abiogenesis, I would suggest it has no utilitarian value whatsoever.

People used to think that of evolutionary theory. And then things like antibiotic resistance made that important. You never know what truth might have value.

It makes no difference to my life if God created in 6 days or over 13 billion years nor even the methods he employed to do that.

That's true. But there are things that do matter within the processes He used.

How can a person be an expert about something they cannot prove or know for sure to be true?

How, for example can a physicist be an expert in kinetic theory, even if he can't prove that all the oxygen atoms will not move to one corner of the room? That seems obvious.

Prediction to me means saying something before it actually physically happens

Such as Huxley's prediction in the 1800s that we would find transitionals between birds and dinosaurs? Flemming's prediction that overuse of penicillin would lead to the evolution of resistance? Yep.

The important thing to keep in mind is that every theory and even what we think of as scientific laws are models.

Several errors there. First, laws are weaker than theories. And models are neither theories nor laws.

Main Difference – Theory vs Law

Theory and law are two terms that we encounter in the field of sciences. Although theories and laws explain various concepts in science, there is a definitive difference between theory and law. Theory explains why something happens whereas law describes what happens when certain conditions are present. This is the key difference between theory and law.
Difference Between Theory and Law | Definitions, Function, Characteristics

The main difference between model and theory is that theories can be considered as answers to various problems identified especially in the scientific world while models can be considered as a representation created in order to explain a theory.
Difference Between Model and Theory

But more recently it has become a grand colossus idolized by many as an alternate explanation for origins, the universe, and human nature.

Comes down to evidence. And that's why it's become so important. It works. Better than anything else we can do for that.

Abiogenesis is a perfect example of pure speculation.

If you think so, you haven't been paying attention. As we get more and more information about the beginning of life, it appears more and more that God was right about the way life began.

Self-catalyzing RNA, short proteins observed to form abiotically, and a large number of other discoveries all point to life coming about by natural means, as God says in Genesis. He made this world to produce life, and it did.

I get the impression that physics did amazing things this last century but is now approaching the boundaries of what can be plausibly and usefully known.

I'm old, but I was born in mid-20th century. Physics has done amazing things in my lifetime, and looks to be doing more as time goes on. Think about the things we can do now that were dreams when I was born.

 

[Halbhh]

We are the only example of life emerging from inanimate matter and the explanation for that is a supernatural one. This is important because the grander theory of common ancestry depends on the naturalistic processes also assumed for the emergence of life in the first place.

Yes, but there is just one important thing to add, so I'll highlight this part. (We already agree generally on the other things).
Here's a very useful observation to add to this summary: Chemistry and any natural processes that affect life over time are also God's creation.

In other words, any natural process is simply God's creation operating as God designed it to operate!

See the implication? It means that for instance if any natural thing happens, even some evolution, that's literally God's work -- the outcome of His design working as He designed it to work. He is the one who made that natural process.

See the implication? Here's a useful further observation: there isn't really a meaningful difference between creationism -- the how of the unfolding of life -- and the natural processes of nature (of course there could not be...) including any evolution -- evolution and creationism are part and parcel -- like eggs together in a carton for a believer that learns some evolution happened, or to mix metaphors some more, like hand and glove.

Evolution (or any natural process) and creationism -- these 2 things are the same thing to a believer, because we know God created that very design of nature that is operating.

So, the commonplace view of very many Christians that God used evolution -- 'guided evolution' -- is so very indistinguishable from other versions of creationism, they are practically identical. Of course. It ends up being entirely subject to Romans 14:1 (from both sides!), so that no believers should ever have any conflict over such things.

 

[The Barbarian]

In other words, any natural process is simply God's creation operating as God designed it to operate!

Yes.

Evolution (or any natural process) and creationism -- these 2 things are the same thing to a believer, because we know God created that very design of nature that is operating.

Today's winner.

 

[Suggestion Box]

So, science being simply the effort to understand how nature works, it's what you do when you try to adjust how much watering to water your yard in the summer, for example. You are doing science when you do ongoing experiments to find out how little water is enough to maintain what level of green.

This is a great example of what science is, and how it is valuable. The discipline called science (unlike its namesake 'knowledge' which includes other disciplines) necessarily requires an iterative feedback loop. You don't just observe... you observe and then act. The action modifies future observations. Future observations help interpret older observations. It has to be done in real-time. There has to be a goal. You make a change, observe the results, make another change, observe results, and inch your way closer to some desired outcome. If an experiment is fruitful, that says something about its legitimacy. If you keep doing experiments and you think you have results, but those results don't bring you closer to a goal, then you have no basis to measure the accuracy of the results.

Now, there are fields of study that are called "science" which have no feedback loop. I am really starting to think that these fields should not be called science. We should differentiate between two types of knowledge: one that people think of as very accurate and precise, directly observable, enough to make important decisions upon; another that operates on deductive reasoning, without direct observation by anyone, without a feedback loop, which can be marveled at, but upon which important decisions cannot be made.

 

[Halbhh]

This is a great example of what science is, and how it is valuable. The discipline called science (unlike its namesake 'knowledge' which includes other disciplines) necessarily requires an iterative feedback loop. You don't just observe... you observe and then act. The action modifies future observations. Future observations help interpret older observations. It has to be done in real-time. There has to be a goal. You make a change, observe the results, make another change, observe results, and inch your way closer to some desired outcome. If an experiment is fruitful, that says something about its legitimacy. If you keep doing experiments and you think you have results, but those results don't bring you closer to a goal, then you have no basis to measure the accuracy of the results.

Now, there are fields of study that are called "science" which have no feedback loop. I am really starting to think that these fields should not be called science. We should differentiate between two types of knowledge: one that people think of as very accurate and precise, directly observable, enough to make important decisions upon; another that operates on deductive reasoning, without direct observation by anyone, without a feedback loop, which can be marveled at, but upon which important decisions cannot be made.

The famous philosopher of science Karl Popper said something very similar, to paraphrase: that good science is testable ('falsifiable' in that it can be tested and in principle any theory that is testable could possibly be shown wrong, 'falsifiable', in that it's validity is subject to testing/experiments/observations -- and that to be good science, or a good scientific process, any theory must be testable in that way).

 

[The Barbarian]

Now, there are fields of study that are called "science" which have no feedback loop. I am really starting to think that these fields should not be called science. We should differentiate between two types of knowledge: one that people think of as very accurate and precise, directly observable, enough to make important decisions upon; another that operates on deductive reasoning, without direct observation by anyone, without a feedback loop, which can be marveled at, but upon which important decisions cannot be made.

Science is inductive. We look at the phenomena and infer the rules. And the "feedback loop" is as follows:

1. Make predictions
2. test them
3. If they aren't right go to 1 and try again
4. If they are right, we learned something new.

For example, Flemming predicted that if penicillin was overused, bacteria would quickly evolve resistance to it. Not long after, his predictions, based on Darwinian theory, were confirmed. Then, using evolutionary theory, physicians determined antibiotic protocols that would tend to prevent or delay the evolution of resistance. And their predictions were validated.

Because evolutionary theory makes useful predictions, scientists accept it. If it didn't, it would be discarded.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth about Evolution

 

[The Barbarian]

The famous philosopher of science Karl Popper said something very similar, to paraphrase: that good science is testable ('falsifiable' in that it can be tested and in principle any theory that is testable could possibly be shown wrong, 'falsifiable', in that it's validity is subject to testing/experiments/observations -- and that to be good science, or a good scientific process, any theory must be testable in that way).

Popper's theme of falsibility was a key reason for his eventual support of evolutionary theory. He pointed out that it was falsible in several ways.

 

[Suggestion Box]

An important qualifier for the above quote:
The Nature of Evolution (toddcwood.blogspot.com)