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.