Science

[Elanor]

You can't "leave science alone" because science never stops! There are always more discoveries to make. Like the discovery of the atom and quantum theory. If we never questioned what "established science" believes, we'd never find out where it's wrong!

[Jonathan]

Exactly!

However, people should leave the definition of science alone, that is refrain from trying to incorporate the supernatural in science. Science is a way of describing the natural world using natural methods.

[The Gaffer]

Couldn't agree more about the supernatural, but what about the political?

e.g. the climate change denial industry: doing "science" in order to support a political position. Or, on the other side of the political fence, spinning the facts to make nuclear look scary.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Couldn't agree more about the supernatural, but what about the political?

e.g. the climate change denial industry: doing "science" in order to support a political position. Or, on the other side of the political fence, spinning the facts to make nuclear look scary.

Unfortunately these things occur. Other examples are tobacco companies funding research to prove smoking isn't hazardous or creationists trying to demonstrate how the theory of evolution is wrong.
One should ask oneself where the money for the research came from I suppose. Many universities around the world have strict regulations that prevents them from accepting funds from companies, in order to make their research as unbiased as possible.

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

However, people should leave the definition of science alone, that is refrain from trying to incorporate the supernatural in science. Science is a way of describing the natural world using natural methods.

That's exactly what I meant! Of course you can't "leave science alone."

[Elanor]

I don't think science has to be limited to what we can see with our eyes, measure with tools, and record on a data sheet. For me, religion is a science. I don't just believe what anyone tells me; I experiment by acting on what God tells me (whether through direct prompting by feeling and thought, or by the words of a spiritual leader), and find out for myself if it's true. I think this fits comfortably with the "definition of science".

Science (from the American Heritage Dictionary):
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

The scientific method has been applied to many different areas of life, including decision making, problem solving, personal relationships, creativity in advertising, and business. Why not religion? So many people believe that reason and faith are opposite ends of one spectrum, but the truth is that reason and unreasonableness are one axis, while faith and unbelief are another. You can be both disbelieving and unreasonable, just as you can have both faith and reason in abundance. You can also be strong in one but lacking in another. Science and religion are not enemies; questioning the generally accepted theory of evolution, for example, is not "attacking science". It's simply considering other possibilities, just as the theories of two different scientists don't always agree. Who knows? Maybe someday physicists will discover with their microscopes and spectroscopes what I believe to be true through scripture and prayer: that spirit is matter and light is intelligence.

Anyway, that's my rant for today. I go to a religious university, and we bring religion into every subject, so it doesn't seem like a big deal to cross the lines that are considered politically correct (that religion and science don't mix).

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Elanor

I don't think science has to be limited to what we can see with our eyes, measure with tools, and record on a data sheet. For me, religion is a science. I don't just believe what anyone tells me; I experiment by acting on what God tells me (whether through direct prompting by feeling and thought, or by the words of a spiritual leader), and find out for myself if it's true. I think this fits comfortably with the "definition of science".

Science (from the American Heritage Dictionary):
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

The scientific method has been applied to many different areas of life, including decision making, problem solving, personal relationships, creativity in advertising, and business. Why not religion? So many people believe that reason and faith are opposite ends of one spectrum, but the truth is that reason and unreasonableness are one axis, while faith and unbelief are another. You can be both disbelieving and unreasonable, just as you can have both faith and reason in abundance. You can also be strong in one but lacking in another. Science and religion are not enemies; questioning the generally accepted theory of evolution, for example, is not "attacking science". It's simply considering other possibilities, just as the theories of two different scientists don't always agree. Who knows? Maybe someday physicists will discover with their microscopes and spectroscopes what I believe to be true through scripture and prayer: that spirit is matter and light is intelligence.

Anyway, that's my rant for today. I go to a religious university, and we bring religion into every subject, so it doesn't seem like a big deal to cross the lines that are considered politically correct (that religion and science don't mix).

Well, it's a good point, but I was just taking up the Saxifrage Russell POV, which still seems true enough. (read REd Mars!)

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Exactly!

However, people should leave the definition of science alone, that is refrain from trying to incorporate the supernatural in science. Science is a way of describing the natural world using natural methods.

Science defines a lot. There is the science of theology, the science of grammer etc...just a reminder
Of course what you're talking about is Natural Science.

[ayarella]

"Are geology and aerology the same, only from different planets?"

Very entertaining trolls' bane. Aerology is the meterology of the vertical extent of the atmosphere. Unfortunately, geology hasn't given me a lot, if any, of background in that area

Now I would like to pose a question to all of you science fans: Why do so many people view religion and evolution as exclusive? And why does the earth have to be 6,000 years :± 2,000 in order for there to be a higher power?

Is there not a possibility that the earth IS 4.567 billion years old and that there is a creator who allowed the things that he created to adapt to their changing environments.

In my experience, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle of extremist viewpoints.

I am a little puzzled on people's perspectives on this area of the natural sciences in general.

Tell me what you think, I would love to see diverse responses and perhaps that will shed some light on my confusion!

[Insidious Rex]

Theres only a few genuine young earthers here. Most of the rest of the creationist fringe just have a thing against evolution for some apparent reason. I agree with you that it certainly does not negate the concept of christianity or religion in general. But many of these folks are being taught that the concept of evolution is somehow an atheist concept only and therefore anti christian.

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by ayarella

Now I would like to pose a question to all of you science fans: Why do so many people view religion and evolution as exclusive?

Because it gives them something to argue about. Everybody needs to sublimate their frustration in their life in some way, and in recent years, with rising stress levels, more and more people are turning to "the establishment." Whether it's political, religious, or social foundations, people have an urge to tear them down, just to release some energy. Hence liberals and extremists. In two years or so they'll have forgotten about their noble causes. That's my theory. People don't realize this and so they don't even try to channel their energies elsewhere. My psychology teacher, for example, does. She has this irrational, passionate hatred for the P.A. system in my school. I think that's her way of consciously making sure she won't misplace that anger somewhere actually significant, as in flipping out to her class or bitterly condemning some aspect of society without first giving it due judgement. These Creationists and certain atheists haven't given the matter of evolution due judgement.

Again, my opinion. I'm a fan of psychology.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Theres only a few genuine young earthers here. Most of the rest of the creationist fringe just have a thing against evolution for some apparent reason. I agree with you that it certainly does not negate the concept of christianity or religion in general. But many of these folks are being taught that the concept of evolution is somehow an atheist concept only and therefore anti christian.

The only YEC I know is very sincere and intelligent, and not anti-Evolution at all. (Of course, he and I have a tacit agreement to never talk about religion or homosexuality ever.)

[Elanor]

Originally Posted by ayarella

Now I would like to pose a question to all of you science fans: Why do so many people view religion and evolution as exclusive? And why does the earth have to be 6,000 years :± 2,000 in order for there to be a higher power?
Is there not a possibility that the earth IS 4.567 billion years old and that there is a creator who allowed the things that he created to adapt to their changing environments.
In my experience, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle of extremist viewpoints.
I am a little puzzled on people's perspectives on this area of the natural sciences in general.
Tell me what you think, I would love to see diverse responses and perhaps that will shed some light on my confusion!

I usually don't like to get into this type of discussion, expecially online, but this question seems fairly simple to answer. Christians believe in the Bible, whose first chapter states (fairly poetically, and not long at all -- you should read it) that God said "let there be..." light, various features of the earth, plants, animals, etc. and there was. He focused on a different thing each day for six days. On the sixth day he created humans, and on the seventh he rested. Traditionally this account has been held to mean that the earth and its inhabitants were instantly brought into being ex nihilo -- out of nothing. If you read the Bible strictly, you can actually count the years since Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden to later events whose date has been more or less confirmed by historians.

Many people hold to this because they believe the Bible to be the ultimate authority (for some it is the only proof of God's existence), and simply say that scientists are wrong about the whole idea of evolution (it is called the THEORY of evolution, and new discoveries are being made constantly to revise it). Let's face it, popular science changes its mind a lot. But truth is absolute, and won't change no matter what the current theory is.

When Charles Darwin wrote his book the Origin of Man, there was a huge uproar. I don't think you people realize what a big deal it was for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious groups who had their own Creation stories. The idea that we were simply descended from lower forms of life by some random process of evolution contradicted beliefs that millions of people had held firmly for years. Over time this theory and others, such as the scientifically calculated age of the earth, have become standard in public school science classes and textbooks, at least in America. I think each person has to decide for him- or herself what to believe and where to find the balance between religious and scientific belief.

The biblical account can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, you could say that a "day" might possibly mean a longer span of time; thousands or even billions of years. You could say that God merely directed the evolution and guided it in the direction he wanted. And what about the time Adam and Eve were IN the Garden of Eden? We don't know how long that lasted.

I personally believe that some forms of "evolution" do happen, but not that humans are descended from lower forms of life. I believe in God, and that we are his children, created in his image. Darwin's observations of the change in shape of certain birds' beaks is certainly well documented, but humans have been breeding animals for different traits for years, so this isn't truly earth-shattering. Natural selection is simply how animals breed themselves in order to fulfill God's commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. God wants his creations to stay alive, so he gave them the means to adapt.

I don't completely trust carbon dating, because the process hasn't been in use for even a hundred years, let alone a billion. What if carbon decay isn't a completely steady process, or something else has affected it over the centuries? That said, I am not completely certain how long creation actually took before Adam and Eve left the Garden, but I believe that the Biblical account of man's history since that time is true. I do think "day" could be a symbolic word-- not a specific amount of time, but a task or job to be done. I have a firm belief in the laws of physics, which state that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only rearranged or (in very unusual circumstances) converted into energy. So I don't believe in an ex-nihilo creation, but that God created (a better word is organized) the earth and its inhabitants from existing material. God created the whole universe, so the earth may have been used before in his earlier creations, and perhaps this is why there are dinosaur bones and so on.

Another principle of physics is entropy, which says (to summarize) that everything will naturally go from order to disorder. Doesn't that contradict evolution (organisms becoming more complex and ordered over time) to some degree? I believe that no "evolution" would be possible without the hand and mind (power and intelligence) of God directing it. Life does not occur randomly, and nor does intelligence.

Do scientists have any reason at all for evolution to have "naturally" produced intelligent two-legged soft skinned beings with no tail or natural weapons? It makes no sense. I've seen the cave paintings in France that were supposedly (according to the visitor's center) drawn by pre-human ape-like creatures. They're beautiful, and I seriously doubt that anyone less intelligent that us could have drawn them.

For me, the important thing is not if or how or when God created the earth, but that he loves me. That, I have proven for myself. There are countless things we don't know about this universe, and we can't even begin to comprehend the scope of God's wisdom and power, so some questions have to remain unanswered for now. But he has promised that one day we can know all that he knows, so I trust in that.

[inked]

DNA ... validation and invalidations ... who'd have thunk it?

http://titusonenine.classicalanglica...11447#comments

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i love science
i have grade A in GCSE Physics, Chemistry and Biology, am currently studying A2 Archaeology, after getting grade A in my AS Archaeology, and will be studying for either a BA in Archaeology and Anthropology or an MA in Scottish Archaeology from october

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

DNA ... validation and invalidations ... who'd have thunk it?

http://titusonenine.classicalanglica...11447#comments

Will this really make a difference though? After all we have clear mito. DNA evidence tracing back the first human female to a specific time and place in southern Africa. Yet many world religions ignore this fact because it runs counter to their creation myths. Im sure the mormons will make similar adjustments as well. The power of blind faith and denial is enormous in humans.

[trolls' bane]

Quantum mechanics. Does anyone know anything about quantum mechanics? I do! But I'll wait till someone else says something before scaring everyone away. I fell like Alia from Dune.

[katya]

I don`t really know much about quantum mechanics but the little that I do know makes me wanna know more, so please, scare me all you want! onegaishimaaasu.

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by katya

I don`t really know much about quantum mechanics but the little that I do know makes me wanna know more, so please, scare me all you want! onegaishimaaasu.

Good! Well, I know very little about it, but I do know that Quantum particles theoretically have an added six dimensions, that are in no way similar to the four macrodimensions. I know that quarks are shot out from a collision between protons and neutrons, I know that in a black hole, or more specifically it's even horizon, quantum parcicles are infinitely bent and basically there is no anything in a black hole because everything becomes what Sten Odenwald describes as a "quantum froth."
I've got a lot mroe to say besides quantum mechanics, but perhaps some is best said in my old astronomy thread.

[katya]

"quantum froth" huh. Never heard of that. But I do have a hard time trying to get my head around the concept of infinite mass. Wait, suddenly I forgot what an event horizon is. Wasn`t it something to do with the trapped light? How about the thing about the two slit experiement and electrons being in two places at once- is that related to quantum physics? I remember reading an article about it, how small things can be in two places at once (even as big as a small dust particle???). I haven`t thought about this stuff for a long time. Really crazy though. Hard to imagine. Extra dimensions are hard to imagine.