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!

[island]

Hey, as long as people like H. Allen Orr, Richard Dawkins and even PZ Meyer make your short list of equally antifanatical reactionary extremists, then we are in agreement done and done...

You know?... people who would remove scientific concepts from science just because they are too clueless to realize that there is no difference between human-like intent and any other form of naturally expressed bias. Like Vic Stenger, the ones that are pre-motivated to downplay the significance of evidence.

The same clowns that think they can detatch themselves from the process, which is equally arrogant to placing yourself above nature. The ones that are arrogant enough to "believe" that we humans can possibly ever truly violate the ecobalance that we contributing members belong to, especially when given that it is proven that ecosystems are self-regulating.

"Free-Thinkers", in other words.

Problem is... the average joe scientist and guy on the street doesn't know the difference between "purpose in nature" and intelligent intent, either, so they ride the bandwagon because it's their "side" and they KNOW their right.

So, no, your red herring is a real fish, and it stinks.

But nice try.

[QED]

I just tried to preview and lost everything. I really do hate that.

I'm sorry to here that. Perhaps you might consider using a text editor to compose your replies and then paste them in. At the very least I would always recommend selecting and copying the entire post to the clipboard before previewing or submitting -- just in case.

We really shouldn't have strayed so far into a digression about the WAP, but it seems to me to have teased out an issue that is of deep concern to you and which does have a bearing on the topic.

We can know the full extent if the universe is as finite as the most natural extension of general relativity predicts is the case, QED, and your leap of faith to conclude that this is "already known to be highly dubious"... tells me that you put way too much more credence in hyped and popularized cutting edge theoretical physics than you should, if you don't know about how sad and desparate things really are down in the trenches.

Island, you seem to me to be doing exactly what you're complaining about. I am sure that the best application of the scientific method leaves us in the dark about the extent of the universe (this is always a problematic thing to describe -- it might be better stated as the extent of existence). I know of no consensus about this issue among the various mathematicians, physicists, cosmologists and philosophers who work in this area. As far as I know it simply does not exist. Therefore all I have been doing is pointing out the ambiguities that would arise from this -- which I think is the only honest thing to do.

Nothing in our intuitions or expectations is capable of resolving this issue either and I think your reference to "how sad and desperate things are in the trenches" is wildly inappropriate in the face of such real and pressing uncertainties. If you seriously believe that "the scientific method" has been applied to the question of the "extent of existence" and has arrived at a conclusive answer then please present the details. It really would be "one for the books"!

Okay, Einstein wasn't wrong and I can prove it... how's that?...

I've no doubt that you can but you seem to be using some sort of interpretation to conclude that our light cone is the full extent of the universe. I'd like to see you prove that (I think it would be a breakthrough that at the very least would deserve its own new topic here!).

[achilles12604]

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.

Perhaps you are correct. After all others usually see us more accurately than we see ourselves. However, in my own defense of open-mindedness, I submit that once a question I pose has been answered, I alter my viewpoint accordingly. I am very skeptical especially when it comes to sources. I am very picky about source material (just ask Lotan).

So while I do concur fully with you that Christians as a whole have a tendency to ignore whatever does not support their view, I hope that I am not perceived entirely this way. I do try and assimilate all available information and give it credence based on its credibility and length of research of the matter.

Also I judge material on how completely it can answer my questions. This is of course an issue with science as humans are not fully aware of everything in science. My suspicions are based on the countless thousands of failed theories by minds even as great as Einsteins.

Hence when something such as the explanation of the evolution of the eye is presented, I accept what I can take at face value and re-examine my questions to see if they are answered completely. As I stated, the evolution of the eye explains how eye's become more powerful, but it does not fully explain why the structure formed to begin with. Hence I asked for more information in hopes to assimilate even more information.

[achilles12604]

As a quick last thought, I for one am excited at the development of science.

The Christians who have issues with the evidence presented are usually Christians who believe in "THE GOD of GAPS". Whenever a gap is explained, God would then become smaller.

But this line of thinking is stupid. If God does exist, then he would have been the designer of everything just as it happened. Hence I really have no problem with evolution as a whole. I see several places where that theory is lacking, but the general idea seems to be of such genius, that it in itself points to something which understood the best way for the earth to develop into what it was supposed to be.

God is still God, even when we have figured out how he did it.

The creation of the universe is where I think this is the most prominent. We are developing a good idea of what could have occurred. The more we figure out the more it fits with a master plan.

I gave several quotes from atheist genius minds. We agree on some things especially in this area.

[author@ptgbook.org]

Do Christians pick and choose which scientific theories they will trust or dismiss
using the same criteria each time?

I cannot speak for other Christians. I do accept what science says about electrons, protons, and neutrons, but I do not accept evolution. Do I choose which scientific theories I accept and which I dismiss using the same criteria each time? Yes.

The study of the particles that make up an atom is the study of how things are. It is not a study of how things began. One can study how things are by using repeatable experiments. Evolution is a scientist's explanation of how things began. That is an important difference. You cannot do an experiment using a new planet earth with no life on it then wait five billion years to see what happens. The theory of evolution has something in common with history, in that sense, in a way that the study of the atom is not, in that it tries to describe what happened in the past, not just the way things are today.

As a Christian, I know that God has designed natural laws that govern the normal day-to-day operation of the universe, and God rarely makes exceptions to those laws. When He does, we call them miracles. But God has built a universe that operates according to laws so that man can work with matter. In order for man to be able to work with matter, to build things, to control his environment, there has to be predictability in the way the universe works. We can investigate those laws by performing experiments, then use the results of those experiments to invent things and change our environment. God also chooses to not force people to believe in His existence at this time. This is another reason why God rarely performs miracles, at least of the type that would make it obvious to the world that He sometimes makes exceptions to natural law.

The scientific method recognizes natural law as a governing principle in the universe. As I understand it, the scientific method requires that only natural explanations be offered to explain evidence, never supernatural ones. This works fine when explaining everyday processes.

But evolution is different. Evolution is an attempt to explain how life on earth came to be, and that puts it into a different category. You can't know from scientific experiments and observations what God may have done in the past. You can't use scientific experiments to prove that God did not create life. The best you can do is to try to show that evolution is possible, but you can't prove it actually happened. And I personally do not believe that it is even possible.

Yet the scientific method is used by scientists to try to explore the issue of the origin of life, and it cannot do this impartially because it cannot look at both sides of the issue equally. It cannot examine the possibility of divine creation because the scientific method forbids the consideration of supernatural explanations for evidence. So it is too biased to be trustworthy in a search for truth.

There is another difference between the study of the particles in an atom and the study of the origin of life. Men can be impartial about theories of what an atom is made up of in a way that they are unlikely to be with regard to origins. Believing that an atom is made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons has no effect on whether I feel free to commit adultery, steal, lie, hurt others, etc. But the issue of origins is directly related to the issue of whether there is a higher power that has authority over me and that will judge me in how I have lived my life. Someone who feels uncomfortable with the idea that there is a God that they will face one day in a judgement may feel compelled to accept evolution, because evolution is the only explanation for the existence of life that they know of that permits them to believe that there is no God. So this can be another source of bias that makes evolution seem untrustworthy to me.

So two criteria I use to decide if I will accept a scientific theory are: If it has to do with how things are, not how they began, and if it is morally neutral, that is, it is not related to the question of God's existence. Thus I am willing to accept atomic theory, but not evolution.

There is also a third criteria. I have found what I believe is objective evidence that prophecies in the Bible written thousands of years ago have been fulfilled in modern times in a way that I think a reasonable mind would not regard as coincidence. This for me proves that the Bible is inspired by God. And I choose to believe that God has not lied in the Bible. Therefore, for me, a third criteria is whether the scientific theory contradicts the Bible. Evolution contradicts the Bible, atomic theory does not. I choose to believe the Bible.

[Chem]

The study of the particles that make up an atom is the study of how things are. It is not a study of how things began.

I for one would beg to differ on that point, I think that you should re-evaluate that statement. The study of particle physics has more to do with how things began than Evolutionary Theory. The standard model of the universe describes how the elementary particles were created in the first few seconds of the Big Bang and moving on from that period how dying stars generated all the naturally occurring elements in the Periodic Table. Evolutionary Theory describes how we have come to be and doesn't stop there as we are evolving even as we speak- take for instance people with natural immunity to malaria and AIDS etc.

And I personally do not believe that it is even possible.

Belief and evidence are two different entities. The problem for people and science is not as simple as belief, science demands more than belief. It requires proving your point and/or revising your theory, that is why science offers more to people than religion because it can change when required and is not chained to material written c. 2000 years and more ago and interpreted by a few who believe they know what's best for the rest of Mankind.

Believing that an atom is made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons has no effect on whether I feel free to commit adultery, steal, lie, hurt others, etc. But the issue of origins is directly related to the issue of whether there is a higher power that has authority over me and that will judge me in how I have lived my life. Someone who feels uncomfortable with the idea that there is a God that they will face one day in a judgement may feel compelled to accept evolution, because evolution is the only explanation for the existence of life that they know of that permits them to believe that there is no God. So this can be another source of bias that makes evolution seem untrustworthy to me.

Evolution has no input into peoples morality. The belief in God has greatly hampered people- Dark Ages, Witch Hunts etc. Ask Galileo ! The issue of origins has nothing to say regarding the existence of a Supernatural Being. This is antropomorphism run wild.

There is also a third criteria. I have found what I believe is objective evidence that prophecies in the Bible written thousands of years ago have been fulfilled in modern times in a way that I think a reasonable mind would not regard as coincidence. This for me proves that the Bible is inspired by God. And I choose to believe that God has not lied in the Bible. Therefore, for me, a third criteria is whether the scientific theory contradicts the Bible. Evolution contradicts the Bible, atomic theory does not. I choose to believe the Bible.

What objective evidence? There is none. People proffer Nostradamus, the bible code etc. as evidence of foresight- all of which has been found wanting. The problem of course is your belief system and how you interpret the Bible based on your world view.

[Cathar1950]

author@ptgbook.org:

As a Christian, I know that God has designed natural laws that govern
the normal day-to-day operation of the universe, and God rarely makes
exceptions to those laws.

Do you know or do you believe?
What if God did not design natural laws but God is also stuck with them? Maybe natural laws are natural.
From what I have seen of prophecy it is anything but objective.

[QED]

But God has built a universe that operates according to laws so that man can work with matter. In order for man to be able to work with matter, to build things, to control his environment, there has to be predictability in the way the universe works. We can investigate those laws by performing experiments, then use the results of those experiments to invent things and change our environment.

This universe that you suppose God has built is very ubiquitous indeed! You paint a familiar picture of a highly predictable world which supplies man with all the stable raw ingredients and laws that enable him to pursue his own design objectives. I would assume from the rest of your statements that you believe other matters such as the apparent design seen in living things to be miracles, not natural out-workings of this same ubiquitous and stable universe entirely through its own laws and logic. If so, I wonder why you would draw a line in what seems to me to be a highly arbitrary position by imagining that the universe is incapable of doing the job on its own. I say this because I have seen ample evidence that the laws themselves provide a principle that is capable of generating no end of apparent design. In particular, I'm thinking of a practical application called evolvable hardware as implemented by a well-respected US agency.

If our experiments can obtain optimal designs without our intelligent input into the design choices (allowing a simple logical strategy freely available in nature to take on this important role) then it seems a bit rash to rule out a similar, fully natural, process from assuming the same role in the apparent design of living things. The principle has demonstrable power so why would it be left dormant in nature?

[jjg]

QED, I've told you before that this proves nothing. The programming begins with human concepts and designs.

[QED]

QED, I've told you before that this proves nothing. The programming begins with human concepts and designs.

I'm glad that you've used that particular wording -- begins. Sure we set it in motion, but what it does from there on is entirely down to the system. Please don't just tell us all that it proves nothing -- go to the topic I started to address this very interesting issue Can designs be evolved without intellectual contamination? and explain why it proves nothing as you claim.