Skip to comments.Science Becoming a Religion
Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua
Empirical science and religion differ in some fundamental ways. Scientists look for questions to ask. Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.
Science has theories that are subject to change. In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. A year latter J.J. Thomson overturned this theory by reporting his discovery that atoms were actually comprised of smaller charged particles he called "protons", "electrons" and "neutrons". Later research demonstrated that Thomson's particles were comprised of even smaller particles.
Religion has truths that are to be accepted without question. Those who question these truths may be treated as heretics.
Real scientists encourage questions. They even ask questions about established theories including aspects of the Theory of Relativity and try to find ways these theories might be wrong. Stephan Hawking demonstrated what a real scientist does when he suggested he had been wrong when he suggested that information cannot escape from a black hole. Physicists have a model of the atom they are satisfied with, but that hasnt stopped them from checking to see if they might have missed something. They are currently colliding heavy nuclei to test the model.
Relgion gets its truths from prophets or dieties. Science has to do things the hard way by conducting repeated observations and experiments. Science cannot verify theories about physical processes that cannot be examined.
Some people who call themselves scientists want science to become a substitute for religion, or at least function more like a religion.. Some believe that science can provide an explanation for events in the distant past that is so accurate it cannot be questioned. Such a claim is illogical because insufficient information is available. For example, those who talk about greenhouse gases state they can precisely determine past temperatures by examining tree rings or ice cores. The width of tree rings depends upon availability of water and the amount of time temperatures are within the range the tree can grow in, not average temperatures. The religious fanatics of the greenhouse gas religion have been accused of practicing censorship of those who disagree with their doctrine.
The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth has traditionally been the province of religion. Science can only deal effectively with the present. It cannot observe or manipulate the distant past to verify theories. The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth is interesting and scientific studies of the present might provide useful information, but science cannot provide a definitive answer to the question of how the universe or biological life came to exist. Science can only say what might have happened.
Here we go again.
This article is a classic example of projection.
Science is at odds with my religious beliefs, therefore science must be a religious belief.
Give me a break.
Real science has no points of conflict with religion; just junk science and democrat science, i.e. things like global warming and evolutionism.
If she really believed the premise, she'd have posted the article in the Religion Forum rather than in the News Forum.
Please explain, in detail, how evolution equals junk science.
I’ve always wanted to hear that explained myself.
Ever hear of archaeologists, geologists, and astronomers?
In fact, I am an archaeologist. And I guarantee you that we can indeed observe the past.
The education system has largely failed to get this concept ingrained - all science is tentative. All descriptions and explanations of physical observation are tentative. The scientific method, if properly followed, is nothing but a way of most honestly describing the physical world around us based on the limited data available. Every physical description accrued using the scientific method is open to modification (or supplantation) in the face of new data.
When science is politicized, this natural process (good theories persisting with modification, and poor theories dying off and being replaced outright) is threatened, and poor theories end up being insulated from criticism, preventing improvement which would naturally arise from the scientific method. It is more like a welfare-state for bad science than science "turning into religion" (though the latter can also happen - see global warming).
This amounted to a laboratory disproof which was so unambiguous that several major scientists publically repudiated Darwinism at the time, including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt who offered up his "hopeful monster" theory as an alternative. He subsequently claimed to be being subjected by colleagues to something similar to George Orwell's ten-minute hate sessions from "1984".
That's one angle on it, there are a dozen or so others.
National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE)
The Partnership claims it abdicated this crucial role to UCS because it enables the religious community to draw upon UCSs extensive body of research, its national network of scientists, its longstanding experience in public education and its knowledge of environmental policy. In reality, NRPE placed entire control of its agenda in the hands of a left wing organization.
In 1969, forty-eight professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology formed the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to protest Americas involvement in the Vietnam War. The group conducted a highly publicized strike in March 1969, that included such speakers as leftist MIT professor Noam Chomsky, and Eric Mann of the Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society. (SDS was the terrorist organization responsible for bombing the U.S. Capitol Building in 1971.) The Union used the strike as a forum to declare that misuse of scientific and technical knowledge presents a major threat to the existence of mankind. This philosophy was starkly articulated by key organizer, Jonathan Kabat: Youve got to say, No, we want capitalism to come to an end.
As a matter of fact, science can so observe some aspects of the distant past. Light has a speed. Light from far away started long ago.
In this way, we know of some very early times in the existence of the universe, for the light from that early time is now the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Light from distant galaxies comes to us from 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 billion years ago.
We can also gain information about distant times from geology. From DNA, which evolves in its “junk” sections at a fairly constant rate. From radioactive elements, which decay at absolutely constant rates, with the exception of what happens in reactors. And yes, from tree rings and ice layers.
All these things give us observations of the past.
Evolution is real science. It’s as well established as just about anything in science.
Which version/translation of God’s Word do you hold to be the correct one?
Let’s put it this way, “God’s Word is true and every man a liar”. You like that version?
The people telling you that are misguided.
presently no screen name: Evolution is anti-God. Nothing real about it.
Can you gentlemen support your statements with scientific evidence, or are they just religious beliefs?
Here's the Saint Nancy version of worship.
I mentioned one scientific disproof above.
Here are some definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread). Please note the definitions of "theory":
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from it seems to be correct to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that its use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
Based on these, evolution is a theory.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
Perhaps some religions. I'm from a very conservative evangelical background, and I've always been told there is nothing wrong with doubts, that doubt and faith are not opposites (disobedience to conscience is the opposite of faith). I believe in spite of doubt.
Every attempt at a comprehensive world view has internal apparent contradictions and shortcomings of various magnitude. No one has presented me with a comprehensive world view that makes more sense to me than the Christian understanding, certainly not atheism which pretty much makes a complete botch of the immaterial world, and has its own "leaps of faith" in the material world.
Please explain in detail how evolution is a fact and is true. (we both know that this is impossible) I’m not saying that science is a religion but I am saying that the belief in evolution is.
If you need more clarification than what I wrote, you are in trouble! God made it all and every bit of creation you study. You marvel at what you find, but do not marvel at The Creator.
You proved my point nicely. You want scientific proof which is lower than God - for proof that evolution is anti-God You see where you put God on your scale of belief - below ‘scientific’ proof. How anti-God is that?
Which theory of evolution do you hold as gospel? (in your religion)
Here are some responses (from Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak). I have included a few extra, because I need to get some sleep and won't be able to post much longer tonight.
Similar point more forcefully argued by Michael Behe in his new Book "The Edge of Evolution."
Part of the problem people have is that "Evolution" is a term thrown around without context or definition. Even six-day creationists believe in certain kinds of evolution (and fairly rapid evolution).*
The rub comes with Darwinian Evolution, which has excluded the possibility of any "outside" mover (intelligent designer) from the outset. If you make yourself deaf, you cannot hear.
*for example, the races of man must have developed from a single pair over 6,000 years
You are doing religion, not science.
Accordingly, if you are just expressing your particular religious belief, why should we then believe anything you say about science? (See tagline.)
Evolution is not per se anti-God, but to the extent it repudiates the mythical Adam and Eve story, and its attendant “original sin” doctrine, it is indeed anti-Judeo-Christian. One could still conjure up a view throwing out the bible as one’s basis for theology, and instead contemplate some notion of a supernatural “something” (”God” in some sense) constituting a First Cause of the universe, setting in motion eventual conscious organisms. But there isn’t even any evidence of that.
Who is the arrogant one here? I vote for you.
Nobody undertakes science without an underlying philosophy or, if you will, religion. No human observer is fully capable of objectivity. There are any number of ways to make sense of the things we observe on a daily basis. Some, as do I, come at it from the perspective of the biblical texts. Others have texts of their own making from which to postulate and draw conclusions.
At bottom science is not as cut and dried as we’d like it to be. Human experience does not leave much, if any, room for absolute statements.
Actually its worse than that. A lot worse!
One creationist, "John Woodmorappe" (a pseudonom used by Jan Peczkis, a high school science teacher), claimed in an article titled The non-transitions in human evolutionon evolutionists terms, that not just human races but all fossils belonging to genus Homo developed since Babel!
This view requires evolution to have happened in exactly the same manner proposed by scientists, except several hundred times faster and in reverse!
How can YOU speak of science and leave God out of it when HE created it all?
Your tagline is merely your thoughts - and everyone has them and they are a dime a dozen. But there is ONLY ONE God and ONE Truth and that’s what I read, not taglines.
Your definition of “faith” remains self-devised. Faith rarely rests upon “no evidence.” Such faith is typically qualified as “blind.”
So you are saying that all worldviews are religions? That's pretty silly!
Fester, long time no see! Where you been keeping yourself? (You'll find the crowds on the crevo threads are much thinner of late. Most of the scientists have been banned or left in disgust.)
You should at least play cards with an honest deck. Let me give you a real life example from yesterday:
My son had to leave last night for training in North Carolina. Two hours before leaving he called and told me he had lost his wallet 3 days earlier, had looked everywhere to no avail. With all his ID and credit cards and cash gone there is no way he could leave on a Saturday night to drive to North Carolina. We prayed about it. One hour later a woman knocked on his door and said she had found his wallet and finally tracked him down (his address recently changed). "No" material evidence? That's ridiculous. You may argue "insufficient" material evidence if you like, but "none"? You're playing with a doctored deck, my friend.
As above, if you make yourself deaf, you cannot hear.
If you disagree, contribute your comments to the thread that we used to work out these definitions.
Not exactly. Just that science cannot be undertaken without some kind of world view; a view that governs the assumptions and conclusions as science is practiced.
Goldschmidt’s theory was a theory of evolution differing from previously accepted ideas. It was not at all a theory of non-evolution. That argument was settled long ago, and there is no scientific evidence that it was settled wrongly. Nothing in the research on fruit flies in any way refutes evolution (incidentally, geneticists like a certain species of fruit fly because it has only four pairs of chromosomes).
The links were dead; would you mind terribly posting the source URL? Thanks!
Sorry, I should have tested. They are all on this page:
Raw URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
You are a funny guy. You and your “eternity” bit. Good luck.