Do Christians hold Science to a higher standard?

[Cmass]

I have read Christians in many forums requesting "more evidence" of some basic scientific theories. They often use any area where there is a gap in evidence as proof that the Bible myths are true.
Is there a double standard here? Do Christians inadvertently hold science to a higher standard than their own Bible? Do they question the Bible with the same voracity? Or would doing so result in conclusions that were not in keeping with the myth?
Have fun!
- Chris

[Cathar1950]

Feedback is a good part of the life of organisms.
But that is another issue.
I get all awe struck when I think of the millions of years it took for the Iron to be used up so O2 could fill the water and the air enough were organisms could use it.
Cmass I got my bug spray. I can't wait to try it on some people this summer.
Thanks.

[Cmass]

Yes, this is true, but how many atheists on this forum attempt to address the fact that science cannot explain how life began? We can use evololution etc. once the inital foundation of life is established, but we ignore the fact that science can't tell us where the foundation came from. Yes, science is a form of self-correcting and evaluating process. But what science can't explain, it doesn't attempt to explain. It ignores it. Don't get me wrong. I don't think science is wrong in not attempting to explain it. Currently, it isn't an area science cat address. But we still ignore this gap from the earth being created to life becoming present: all forms of life, plants, animals, insects, etc....Life isn't formed from non-life.

Hogwash. No, we don't "ignore it". Lack of knowledge does not mean it is being ignored. Science is working hard to establish "how" life began and there are viable theories that are being advanced on the subject. In fact the mechanics of it have been narrowed down quite well all the way from the Big Bang until now. If you don't understand the subject or are not familiar with the theories it does not mean the subject is ignored.
Why would I address the fact that science does not yet have a thorough explanation of it (yet) any more than I would address the fact that science cannot yet predict the weather with 100% accuracy or any other gap in knowledge? The gaps in knowledge have nothing to do with the process of science beyond being an area that needs more work done, more evidence collected etc.. I could go on and on about areas where science has not yet proven something. So what? There is lots of work to be done....... so get to work! The problem is that deist point to gaps in knowledge as proof of God. Sometimes they even point to gaps in their own knowledge as gaps in scientific knowledge! Silly people. This simply shows an ignorance of science as a process.
If we don't yet have something figured out it does not mean we won't eventually have it figured out and it certainly does not prove the existence of a magical being.

Medicine: I can't tell you how many time I have had a patient in the ICU who was septic, in their 90's, had a bad heart and kidneys already, and by all rights should have died: yet they lived and went home independently by contrast I have had 30 year olds, septic but with healthy heart, lungs, etc.... all the same septic shock events as the 90 year old: but they died. Why? Science can't answer it.

Yes, science CAN answer this. It is YOU who cannot answer this because you do not have enough data or do not have enough training. Most likely, you simply don't have the time to investigate: It might take years to find out why any particular event turned out the way it did and it is beyond the scope of your job. If you had the money to dedicate resources on any particular event you could run your own investigation team and likely find out why a particular patient's immune system was more capable than another's. And if you could not, it does not invalidate the scientific method and thus prove a magical being exists, it simply means your team was unable to figure it out.

without empirical data to prove the natural, we assume the natural by means of natural gaps. Same concept, different logic.

Huh? This makes no sense. It is completely appropriate to make assumptions about gaps in knowledge if the flow of logic is consistent. If I can prove that 1+1=2, 3+3=6 and 4+4=8 but cannot yet prove the result of 2+2, a logical assumption to my gap of knowledge is to theorize 2+2 probably = 4 with the understanding that I may be proven wrong when the data comes in. A deist would simply say 2+2=God. Period. End of discussion.

[Cmass]

Cmass I got my bug spray. I can't wait to try it on some people this summer.
Thanks.

Great! Glad it arrived OK. It does indeed repel mosquitoes but it won't yet repel nonsense. I am still working on that one.

[QED]

Now other theories have been proposed which put natural selection to work a little further down the line (placing it where biologists seem most comfortable with it i.e. as an on-going part of evolution) In my view this is an unimportant distinction. It may be described as a form of faith that life is an entirely self-organising system, but it's faith in a known principle rather than in some supernatural tale which bases itself upon wholly unknown principles.

When it comes to biology and chemical reactions that include self replicating molecules, it's all chemistry.

And all chemistry is Quantum Electrodynamics, but the further we reduce these things the more people will lose sight of the explanations they provide. That's why I'm more interested in identifying principles. People are more comfortable with a concept when they can see a principle that makes it work. Take a lever for example. The "Magic" of how you can easily lift something heavy is dispelled when you realise that you're moving the lever through a greater distance than the load. Armed with knowledge of this principle and a ratchet mechanism it should no longer be a mystery how a single person can lift a car.

[Cmass]

Armed with knowledge of this principle and a ratchet mechanism it should no longer be a mystery how a single person can lift a car.

Can a married person lift a car?

[Confused]

Yes, this is true, but how many atheists on this forum attempt to address the fact that science cannot explain how life began? We can use evololution etc. once the inital foundation of life is established, but we ignore the fact that science can't tell us where the foundation came from. Yes, science is a form of self-correcting and evaluating process. But what science can't explain, it doesn't attempt to explain. It ignores it. Don't get me wrong. I don't think science is wrong in not attempting to explain it. Currently, it isn't an area science cat address. But we still ignore this gap from the earth being created to life becoming present: all forms of life, plants, animals, insects, etc....Life isn't formed from non-life.

Hogwash. No, we don't "ignore it". Lack of knowledge does not mean it is being ignored. Science is working hard to establish "how" life began and there are viable theories that are being advanced on the subject. In fact the mechanics of it have been narrowed down quite well all the way from the Big Bang until now. If you don't understand the subject or are not familiar with the theories it does not mean the subject is ignored.
Why would I address the fact that science does not yet have a thorough explanation of it (yet) any more than I would address the fact that science cannot yet predict the weather with 100% accuracy or any other gap in knowledge? The gaps in knowledge have nothing to do with the process of science beyond being an area that needs more work done, more evidence collected etc.. I could go on and on about areas where science has not yet proven something. So what? There is lots of work to be done....... so get to work! The problem is that deist point to gaps in knowledge as proof of God. Sometimes they even point to gaps in their own knowledge as gaps in scientific knowledge! Silly people. This simply shows an ignorance of science as a process.
If we don't yet have something figured out it does not mean we won't eventually have it figured out and it certainly does not prove the existence of a magical being.

Medicine: I can't tell you how many time I have had a patient in the ICU who was septic, in their 90's, had a bad heart and kidneys already, and by all rights should have died: yet they lived and went home independently by contrast I have had 30 year olds, septic but with healthy heart, lungs, etc.... all the same septic shock events as the 90 year old: but they died. Why? Science can't answer it.

Yes, science CAN answer this. It is YOU who cannot answer this because you do not have enough data or do not have enough training. Most likely, you simply don't have the time to investigate: It might take years to find out why any particular event turned out the way it did and it is beyond the scope of your job. If you had the money to dedicate resources on any particular event you could run your own investigation team and likely find out why a particular patient's immune system was more capable than another's. And if you could not, it does not invalidate the scientific method and thus prove a magical being exists, it simply means your team was unable to figure it out.

without empirical data to prove the natural, we assume the natural by means of natural gaps. Same concept, different logic.

Huh? This makes no sense. It is completely appropriate to make assumptions about gaps in knowledge if the flow of logic is consistent. If I can prove that 1+1=2, 3+3=6 and 4+4=8 but cannot yet prove the result of 2+2, a logical assumption to my gap of knowledge is to theorize 2+2 probably = 4 with the understanding that I may be proven wrong when the data comes in. A deist would simply say 2+2=God. Period. End of discussion.

Ouch. First, I wouldn't know what a deist would say.

second, in medicine, you may be right, I don't have the time or the resources to explain why the least likely person to survive septic shock survived and the most likely person to survive died.
third, I stand corrected. I can only claim fatigue at the time I wrote the earlier post and now. I will revisist it after I get some sleep. Likely, I will still stand corrected, but I will have to defer until i am awake enough to know. 37 hour shift makes thinking about anything outside of diagnoses impossible.

[Cmass]

Ouch.

Come on Confused, you can take it! Every time I revisit this forum you are better than the last time and are quite capable of kicking bootie.

First, I wouldn't know what a deist would say.

Sure you would. You read it every day.

37 hour shift makes thinking about anything outside of diagnoses impossible.

Are you nuts? I thought only I kept those kinds of hours! S
Sweet dreams,
Chris

[QED]

Armed with knowledge of this principle and a ratchet mechanism it should no longer be a mystery how a single person can lift a car.

Can a married person lift a car?

OK Groucho, obviously if you're married you get your Husband to do it.

I think there may be a rule about one-liners so let's both stand in the corner with our dunces hats on for a couple of nanoseconds.

[Cmass]

OK Groucho, obviously if you're married you get your Husband to do it.

Yes, I'm married (The Avatar is my son the Truth Cop) However, I still have a problem: I don't have a husband to help lift the car. I have heard that it is not appropriate for me to be raising a child without a husband. Perhaps part of the reason is due to safety reasons; because it takes 2 men to lift a stuck car? Perhaps I need both a wife and a husband? I'd rather have 2 wives but perhaps it is not moral. I'm sooo confused!

I think there may be a rule about one-liners so let's both stand in the corner with our dunces hats on for a couple of nanoseconds.

OK. I'm done. Can I keep the hat?

QED wrote:

And all chemistry is Quantum Electrodynamics, but the further we reduce these things the more people will lose sight of the explanations they provide............... etc.. and a ratchet mechanism it should no longer be a mystery how a single person can lift a car.

BTW, this is good stuff. Question: Do you think the loss of a mystery can be traumatic for a person?

[Confused]

Code: Select all

Confused: Quote: 
Yes, this is true, but how many atheists on this forum attempt to address the fact that science cannot explain how life began? We can use evololution etc. once the inital foundation of life is established, but we ignore the fact that science can't tell us where the foundation came from. Yes, science is a form of self-correcting and evaluating process. But what science can't explain, it doesn't attempt to explain. It ignores it. Don't get me wrong. I don't think science is wrong in not attempting to explain it. Currently, it isn't an area science cat address. But we still ignore this gap from the earth being created to life becoming present: all forms of life, plants, animals, insects, etc....Life isn't formed from non-life. 

Cmass:
Hogwash. No, we don't "ignore it". Lack of knowledge does not mean it is being ignored. Science is working hard to establish "how" life began and there are viable theories that are being advanced on the subject. In fact the mechanics of it have been narrowed down quite well all the way from the Big Bang until now. If you don't understand the subject or are not familiar with the theories it does not mean the subject is ignored.
Why would I address the fact that science does not yet have a thorough explanation of it (yet) any more than I would address the fact that science cannot yet predict the weather with 100% accuracy or any other gap in knowledge? The gaps in knowledge have nothing to do with the process of science beyond being an area that needs more work done, more evidence collected etc.. I could go on and on about areas where science has not yet proven something. So what? There is lots of work to be done....... so get to work! The problem is that deist point to gaps in knowledge as proof of God. Sometimes they even point to gaps in their own knowledge as gaps in scientific knowledge! Silly people. This simply shows an ignorance of science as a process.
If we don't yet have something figured out it does not mean we won't eventually have it figured out and it certainly does not prove the existence of a magical being.

I would agree with you on several point here. However, I would also continue to state that science currently does ignore gaps. Not by intention, but because of all the reasons you have listed. Technology doesn't exist currently to answer the questions, not enough research done yet to answer the questions, etc... Science doesn't try to use these gaps to prove or disprove something such as a theist might with the God of gaps. However, we do accept certain theories without adequate explanations for them. The cosmological constants are perfect examples. We can't tell you why X is this number, but X must be this number for life to exist. We can't tell you how Z became this number, but Z must be this number for life to exist. The laws of thermodynamics rely upon many of these concepts, yet we really can't tell you why. Now, we dont' try to insert supernatural into the possible reasons. But we do just accept them without 100% ability to prove them. For example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says the systems will tend to drift towards their natural state of increased entropy. However, when we apply this towards the arrow of time, we can see the arrow in terms of future and past by seeing the decreasing of entopy as the past and the increaing of entropy as the future. It gives us a temporal orientation of a future and a past. But the entropic law is double headed: the arrow entropy can be increased in the past and the future. Why? Because we are running on the assumption that as long as entropy is increasing, we have not reached the maximum amount of entropy possible, therefore we will still see an increasing amount of entropy in that past and in the future. But we can only trust our memories of the past as being the past with less entropy if we can accept the fact that the Big Bang was the point at which the lowest amount of entropy existed. We theorize this, but cannot actually validate it. I know there is some mathematical equation to show this. But put in real terms as opposed to an equation, it doesn't allow for reality. We accept it because when plugged in to other factors it works. So once again, it isn't that we are inserting something into places we don't understand to explain it for the sake of explaining it. But until proven otherwise, we are accepting it because it works in equations and can be repeated to work in equations. Even thought the equation itself doens't explain it. Am I making sense here or did I just go in a 360 degree circle? (This is where I drop to my knees and await the lashing because I misinterpreted something or did an awful job explaining myself, as I am known to do).

Confsued Quote:
Medicine: I can't tell you how many time I have had a patient in the ICU who was septic, in their 90's, had a bad heart and kidneys already, and by all rights should have died: yet they lived and went home independently by contrast I have had 30 year olds, septic but with healthy heart, lungs, etc.... all the same septic shock events as the 90 year old: but they died. Why? Science can't answer it.

Cmass:
Yes, science CAN answer this. It is YOU who cannot answer this because you do not have enough data or do not have enough training. Most likely, you simply don't have the time to investigate: It might take years to find out why any particular event turned out the way it did and it is beyond the scope of your job. If you had the money to dedicate resources on any particular event you could run your own investigation team and likely find out why a particular patient's immune system was more capable than another's. And if you could not, it does not invalidate the scientific method and thus prove a magical being exists, it simply means your team was unable to figure it out.

I disagree here. It isn't possible to take into account every extraneous variable that can affect the outcome of a patients prognosis. We cannot duplicate the same scenario in another patient because each patient is different. There is no such thing as a textbook case of congestive heart failure, or septic shock, or cor pulmonale. Each human body reacts differently. For examply, the average human body's immune system changes approx every 6 months. Something you weren't allergic to 6 months ago, you may now be allergic to. Antigens and antibodies are ever changing and adapting. It can make treating infections more difficult in some than others. So while I don't know any physician that would insert magic or supernatural causes into the outcome of a patient, I know many who will say they can't explain why this one lived and this one didn't. And all the studies or resources in the world will not be able to change that.

Confused Quote:
without empirical data to prove the natural, we assume the natural by means of natural gaps. Same concept, different logic.

Cmass:
Huh? This makes no sense. It is completely appropriate to make assumptions about gaps in knowledge if the flow of logic is consistent. If I can prove that 1+1=2, 3+3=6 and 4+4=8 but cannot yet prove the result of 2+2, a logical assumption to my gap of knowledge is to theorize 2+2 probably = 4 with the understanding that I may be proven wrong when the data comes in. A deist would simply say 2+2=God. Period. End of discussion.

All I meant by this comment is that without all the empirical data to show why pt X lived and pt Y died, we assume natural causes overwhelmed pt Y without actually having the data to prove it. Because by laws of average, if both patients organs and immune systems are functioning the same, they both have an equal chance of surviving, so why one does and the other doesnt: we can't explain. Or logic says that the healthiest patient has the greatest chance of surviving sepsis if diagnosed and treated at the exact same timeline as the one with more health problems: yet Pt X who was 90 with a history of hypertension, congestive heart failure and renal insufficiency survived, while Pt Y who was 49 with no past medical history except the usual childhood illnesses etc.. died.