first reply to me
Fact, or science's preception of what fact is? Science has to redefine the word for it to even fit. And now they want the original definition to be put back as what fact is? Fact is truth. And for truth to be actual truth it also has to be absolute. Has evolution made it to being absolute that no other evidence found would ever change it again? No?
As far as any
scientific theory can be said to be a truth, evolution is the best theory based on observed facts. E.g. it is a fact that fossils are observed in geologic sediments in some recognisable order, evolution uses this fact, but if you wish to say that evolution is a fact like 1+1=2, then thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not quite the same thing. To be absolutely accurate one must use the word fact and theory in context.
And it's been 150 years and it still has not done so? How long do we wait for it to become absolute, or will it ever make it to that point?
I would submit that evolution is in a stronger scientific position now than it ever was.
How long has creation and God's word been around? How did it slipped through the so called cracks you speak of for so long?
Christian faith - Old testament about 3000, new a little under 2000 years. Faith does not require material proofs for it to exist, nor can it be tested against an opposing faith (there are after all more religions than just one), science does not have that luxury, there is only one type of it and it either works or it fails.
I think your building a strawman here. For even science has no step or process in which a theory becomes absolute. Because there whole step by step process is based on that there are no absolutes. A fact requires truth, and truth requires absolutes. And science cannot work in absolutes, or is this changing?
no your more or less correct in the scientific method science is not static, the process is however static, the theories produced from the method can change.
Second post to me
Science not a democracy? Yep, that's one statement I would have to agree with. Science itself controls all that is within itself which makes it a communist run organization.
Science controls nothing it a process, with various organisation across various fields of speciality. Individual scientist may head these organisations like any other administrative organisation, same a school, political party, church. But with science there is no vote at any level to reorganise the Ã¢â‚¬Ëœscientific methodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ for without it science canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t function.
Everyone that is involved, or allowed to be involved, has to have one way thinking (believe in all their theories). All decisions are controlled by those who believe the samething. All decisions and peer review is done by those who think the same way. No voting is done by two different groups with two different views. All just one view. The only view allowed.
Science is littered with new ideas that were rejected, then accepted. To think that there is this great single mind of rigid thought, does not stand up to the advances in knowledge brought about by thinking scientifically.
Example: What if a government were run with one sided thinking? Either democrats, or republicans or one faction. Would it be called a democracy if a government has only one view and is not open to any other? And all decision are based on this view, and the people have no say so. And all decisions were based on these views. And what if some views of those in this government went against the main view, and those people were removed? Would not that be considered bias? But yet if someone abandons the theories of science, or at least the main ones, what does science do to this person? They are removed, and their creditials are now questioned
Some Ã¢â‚¬ËœgovernmentsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ are run this way, e.g. Dictatorships or Monarchies, and there is ample examples throughout history to show that ultimately you get a bad leader and the system breaks down. But politics is not science, politics is largely an opinion based system, and science is a fact based system. E.g. In politics I could say Ã¢â‚¬Å“democracy is better than communismÃ¢â‚¬Â, but in science I could not say Ã¢â‚¬Å“the sun revolves about the EarthÃ¢â‚¬Â.
.Name one scientist that is involved in any decision making that has a different view of things from all the rest and has been allowed to stay in his status and allowed to think for himself? Anyone?
I would like to think that if confronted with contrary evidence the scientist in question would change his point of view. But in the area of cosmology there is varied views on the big bang, steady state. During WW2 the British science advisor held a differing opinion on rocketry. But in the end a personal opinion and reputation counts for nothing in science, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the data and theories that remain.
So this type of one way teaching has to be applied to schools as well? Because if the truth were known, there are alot of people that would choose to teach their kids something else.
But this is exactly the reason they should not be allowed to, what if (to take a ridiculous example) one wishes to have there children instructed in the geocentric and not sun centred system taught as fact! Would that be right? This was the reason for me stating Science is not a democracy, it must never ever be a democracy, that data, facts, evidence, experimentation, observation do all the talking that is required.