The scientific method

[Cmass]

Can Christians here describe the Scientific Method?
What is it?
How does it work?

Can you define a "theory"?
What is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Do you accept that scientists have discovered other planets in other solar systems many light years away?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind how they are presumably detected?
Does it matter to you?

Do you accept that there are electrons, neutrons, protons, photons and other tiny things that you cannot see?
Why?
Do you understand the science of how these things are detected, manipulated as well as how theories on their behavior are derived?

Do you accept that human-induced global warming is occurring?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind conclusions regarding global warming?
Is the scientific community split on this issue?

Do you accept evolution as a verifiable scientific fact?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind evolution?
Do you understand the science behind evolution better than you understand the science in the topics listed above?
Is the scientific community split on this issue?

Did you know that all the topics listed above involve use of the Scientific Method in order to draw conclusions?

I am truly interested in your answers!

[achilles12604]

Can Christians here describe the Scientific Method?
What is it?
How does it work?

The scientific method is basically a method for testing the validity of a given hypothesis. The process is a person formulates a hyposthesis based on observations. Then they conduct carefully constructed experiments to test the hypothesis based on whatever variables may exist. Then they either change their hypothesis based on the results of the data, or they move on to other ideas.

Can you define a "theory"?
What is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

A theory is an explaination given to observable phenomina. IE the theory of relativity explains the relationship of mass, energy and movement.

A hypothesis is as I said before, a testable idea.

The difference between them is that hypothesis are tested, where as theories, explain why things happen as we see them happening.

Do you accept that scientists have discovered other planets in other solar systems many light years away?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind how they are presumably detected?
Does it matter to you?

Yes.

Because it is logical to conclude based on observations of our own solar system, that these other planets probably exist. Since it is probable that they exist, and since scientist's claims are within the realms of reason, there is no reason to doubt their findings.

No.

No.

Do you accept that there are electrons, neutrons, protons, photons and other tiny things that you cannot see?
Why?
Do you understand the science of how these things are detected, manipulated as well as how theories on their behavior are derived?

Yes. After taking several physics courses, I understand that electrons, protons, and other things like this, can be tested as physical objects. Photons, quarks, and smaller subatomic particles are theories but they fit the observed data so far and so currently they are sound.

Yes to the extent of my schooling.

Do you accept that human-induced global warming is occurring?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind conclusions regarding global warming?
Is the scientific community split on this issue?

Yes. I have noticed myself the climate changing over the last 20 years where I live. Worldwide, scientists are observing an increase in global temperatures and the theory explaining this increase is sound based on the results of testing various hypothesis (ie - that thicker matter between us and the atmosphere does trap in more energy)

Yes.

As far as I am aware, there is contraversy over almost every major issue ever known to mankind. This is no exception.

Do you accept evolution as a verifiable scientific fact?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind evolution?
Do you understand the science behind evolution better than you understand the science in the topics listed above?
Is the scientific community split on this issue?

Define evolution. As it sits, evlution is not proven fact. it is a Theory. Hence, "The Theory of Evolution." Charles Darwin himself wrote of several circumstnces which if they were true, would disprove his theory. A part of his theory is that species advance little by little by small positive steps. If a step or mutation was nt benifical, it would be "gened out". This leads to one problem however. One such circumstance was if there was discovered a system where by the total system would not have been created by little positive steps, then his theory would not apply.

Consider the human eye. As a unit it is a remarkable device which allows us to absorbe enormous amounts of information very quickly. However, looking at all the little parts, it should never have been created by evolution according to Charles Darwin. The lens should never have developed without the jelly to hold it or the cones to take in the information or the pupil to take in the correct amount of light. The same goes for the cones, rods, pupil, jelly and lest we forget the optical nerve and the brain.

The entire system is interdependent and as such, had to have developed all together in perfect harmony. Otherwise, a lens would have been useless and would have "Gened out" before the other parts were made. In fact even if all but on part was made at once, they would have all been destroyed by the process of natural selection. Useless things go away. We see this with deep water fish. There is no light down there. Therefore, they are totally blind and can not see even when light is present. Their eyes are not developed. Useless things go away.

As for the community being split, this is as I pointed out a Theory. Hence since it is the leading theory at this time, science is attempting to validate it through study and observation. Unfortunatly, since creation took billions of years to date, and this theory has only been around for a couple hundred years, I doubt scientists will observe the great change of the species required to prove that species are able to completely change their basic genetic makeup (alter their chromozomes and DNA sequences), to form a new species. No one will be alive long enough to see it.

Did you know that all the topics listed above involve use of the Scientific Method in order to draw conclusions?

I'm not sure how science is able to test the Theory of Evolution. Please explain this one to me. Other than that, yes I get the picture.

I am truly interested in your answers!

No problem. It was a good review from school. It has been a while.

[Cmass]

".. It was a good review from school. It has been a while...."
But your profile says you are only 20!

[achilles12604]

".. It was a good review from school. It has been a while...."
But your profile says you are only 20!

Does it? I'll have to update it. I am all of 23!

[QED]

achilles12604 I don't want to get off topic but your objection to the evolution of the eye is a common one that has been addressed on many occasions. I find the explanation for this and all other complex structures quite reasonable. I wonder why you don't (unless you have not seen it explained).

[Goat]

".. It was a good review from school. It has been a while...."
But your profile says you are only 20!

Does it? I'll have to update it. I am all of 23!

Ah, youth. I haven't seen the low end of 23 since before you were a twinkle in your father's eye.

[achilles12604]

achilles12604 I don't want to get off topic but your objection to the evolution of the eye is a common one that has been addressed on many occasions. I find the explanation for this and all other complex structures quite reasonable. I wonder why you don't (unless you have not seen it explained).

Actually I havn't seen it before so thanks for the info. I appreciate new knowledge.


Now before I begin what I think, let me make it clear I am no expert. I am simply asking questions.


On the "Evolution of the Eye" as presented in your source, why is it that only two stages are given examples? I noticed that only finished Eye's had examples today. The Octopus and the nautilus. The building stages, the very stages which I was refering to, have no modern examples.

However, as there have been many creatures to die out over the years, I will give him the benifit of the doubt.

I am still wary because the first stages, the ones I was refering to when I mentioned constructing the eye, lack examples. Only the more complex stages have examples to point to, which lend me to think that perhaps Dr. Dawkins is suggesting a theory rather than proven fact. The first stages of the eye development as Dawkins suggests, are what puzzles me. Why would a creature benifit from having increased pigmentation in the eye area, without any other added features (IE lens, cells, etc)?

As for the nautlius, this creatures eye does appear to have developed into a much more complex eye in its relative the octapus. However, I still have the same small objection.

The eye of the nautilus, although very simple compared to other eyes, still contains features which shouldn't have evolved without good reason. Take this for example

The retinas of cephalopods, like most other invertebrates, are based on microvillous cells. In squid the retina is composed of groups of four tall cells with a central space, which is filled with microvilli that are oriented at right angles to the adjacent cells and are interwoven to form the rhabdom

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofile ... /Eyes.html

I can see how the eye evolved to include a lens. Once the basic eye was established, this would be of great benifit. However as you can see, even this eye requres extensive retina development. More so than the Octopus which has a lens to aid its sight. This takes me right back to my original question, why would the retina develop? It wasn't aiding anything. See if a lens develops, then it aids the retina. This makes sense. But what part of the eye did the retina aid?

All in all, I think you have answered my question fairly well. However, I will point out that I still believe that much of the work mentioned here is based on developments which themselves had no purpose and should not have existed. But still. It is at least an interesting idea which I believe warrents further study. I think I could buy this explaination if I could get more information concerning the process of building the early stages of the eye. The Nautilus is the most convincing aspect of this arguement. I didn't realize the information concerning their eyes.

While there eyes are still much more complete than the beginning stages, (which is what gives me pause), they are inferior to the eyes of the Octopus. I have no problem in seeing how the eye, (once created) evolved into stronger and better instruments. I still lack information about those first 3 steps however.

Honest question : Do you have further information or examples of the very beginnings of the eyes, or does all the study start when the eyes have already formed a basic structure? If so, I would love to see that info.

[Cmass]

Mr. Achilles, you are doing an excellent job of illustrating some of my concerns regarding Christian's tendency to pick and choose science when it suits their interests. Your dramatic difference in interest between evolutionary biology and the other scientific topics I mentioned is very typical of what I have witnessed on many occasions.
You seem to be a bright fellow - certainly articulate. You also seem very interested in learning about the evolution of the eye. I encourage you to continue with your own eye-opening evolution and continue fostering your curiosity about the world. You may also want to consider studying the science methodology behind evolution; how data is gathered, how experiments are formulated. Compare it to other scientific endeavors that Christians to not find threatening. You may find during your investigations that there is more evidence for evolution (as described by mainstream scientists) and that it is far more studied by a larger number of people than many other scientific endeavors considered Christian-friendly.
Christians get upset over science when they perceive it threatening their biblical world view. I hope you won't let this happen to you because it will shut down your curiosity.
Science is a tool, a methodology. The conclusions drawn from this methodology are not always right, (but it does have built-in error correcting!) but I can confidently say they are more accurate than descriptions of the natural world offered by 2,000 year old, superstitious goat herders and their ghosts (holy) and goblins (devil).

[Grumpy]

achilles12604

I am still wary because the first stages, the ones I was refering to when I mentioned constructing the eye, lack examples. Only the more complex stages have examples to point to, which lend me to think that perhaps Dr. Dawkins is suggesting a theory rather than proven fact. The first stages of the eye development as Dawkins suggests, are what puzzles me. Why would a creature benifit from having increased pigmentation in the eye area, without any other added features (IE lens, cells, etc)?

Actually there are many examples of almost every step in nature today.

Consider two plankton. Both are sensative to UV damage. One has an eye spot(a simple yes/no sensor found in many unicellular creatures) one does not. They both drift close to the surface. The eye spotted creature gets a signal from it's sensor telling it that it is too close to the surface and it swims downward. The cell without the eyespot doesn't know it is too close to the surface and it dies.

A paramecium has two eyespots, one on either side of it's head. It can sense which direction the light is coming from, so it is able to choose which way to go.

A dimpled eyespot gives even more accurate direction information(in the same way as when a car passes a window on a sunny day, it's reflection travels backward on the opposite wall).

A vaginated eyespot(inside a spherical depression with the opening a tiny round hole) can act like a pinhole camera, actually giving crude vision.

The vaginized eyespot grows a covering film over the hole(to keep foriegn matter out). This film thickens to the point it starts affecting the light traveling through it. Natural selection favors those that are lens like.

The rest is just detail improvement.

Such systems are observed in nature today. Even photosynthetic cells tell plants when they are in the light and plants like sunflowers"know" exactly where the sun is. They do not have nerves, but they get the job done anyway.

Grumpy

[Cmass]

We are highly anthropomorphic when it comes to evolutionary biology. Since we can see, the eye was made to a specific design that fits our face perfectly. Since we can hear, the ear was made just right to fit on our head. Since our food tastes good, it must have been made just for us in just the right way. Everything seems to fit us perfectly.
But this is backward. You fit the conditions, the conditions were not created to fit you. Everything only seems to fit you because there is no other way for you to personally experience it. If you lost your legs in the Iraq war you would suddenly find the world was not made for you and you would have to adapt or die. (except I suppose you could say the wheelchair was designed for you in which case you would be correct)

BTW: To clarify, life is a 2-way street. It evolved based upon chemical conditions present on the earth early in it's existence. As a consequence of life, the atmosphere began to change, such as increased oxygen, which in turned favored other forms of life. And this continues today as we heat up the atmosphere with our transportation mechanisms. It is very plausible the human form of life will render the planet too hostile for it and another will become dominant.