|
|
|
Topic: Let's Keep Science and Religion Seperate
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Let’s keep science and religion separate
Science is based on experiment. If it is impossible to imagine an experiment that would disprove a theory it is not science. Religious beliefs require faith. Every religion that I am aware of has important beliefs that can’t be proved or disproved. These beliefs are accepted on faith.
I value religion. I value science. When we mix science and religion trouble ensues. Faith should include an awareness that we could be wrong, after all we can’t prove we are right. Faith should include at least a tolerance that those who disagree might be right. There is no way to prove our beliefs superior to theirs. When we act in the name of God we must remember that we might be acting in the name of nonexistence. It is also possible that God has led those with different beliefs to call him by a different name.
A sad example of mixing religion and science is the term creation science. In the US there is a debate on teaching creation science in our schools. If we are going to teach creation science we should bring our students into a circular classroom and ask them to sit in the corner. Once they have mastered this self contradicting lesson they might be able to grasp the meaning of the course title.
Recently scientists have violated my edict be making reference to the GOD particle. Since they have solid experimental evidence to support their discovery of this particle it is confusing to call it the particle that can’t be proven.
|
|
|
"A sad example of mixing religion and science is the term creation science." When you say that, Physie, you're stating your religious beliefs. That is not a scientific statement.
Every belief requires faith, BTW; your faith is apparently in scientific theories. Have you been there for every scientific experiment to make sure it was done correctly? Have you checked all of their calculations to make sure they're correct? Or do you have faith in their abilities and integrity?
Science deals with the physical only. It cannot prove scientifically that the non-physical does not exist; it is simply out of its purview. Science cannot - if it's honest - say for sure what happened a million years ago; it can only say "If the laws we've discovered have held true all this time and if there was no outside interference then such and such is true." But they don't know if the laws have held steady, and they don't know if there has been outside interference. Religion, in general, says there has been outside interference, so to speak.
As a Christian, I don't want Genesis taught in the government schools; I do want those schools to acknowledge the limits of science, though. Just as in math, you can define f(x) = x/x, and then say that it always equals one, you have to acknowledge that if x = 0 the function is undefined. So the function is limited in its usefulness to situations where x does not equal 0. Science also has its limitations, and that should be acknowledged.
If science is based on experiment, as you say, what experiment tells the age and coming into being of the earth? It's not experiment; it's experiment plus theories plus extrapolation. And the extrapolation only works if there's been no outside interference. But then, I've already touched on that.
|
|
|
Let’s keep science and religion separate
A sad example of mixing religion and science is the term creation science." When you say that, Physie, you're stating your religious beliefs. That is not a scientific statement.
Creationism and/or intelligent design is not science. It is not possible to imagine an experiment that could disprove intelligent design. Students today should know the meaning of intelligent design. There are courses where it might be important to summarize intelligent design and creationism. However, it should not be part of a science curriculum. The only place creationism has in a science class is as an example of an idea that is not science. If you read what I wrote like a lawyer you will notice that I did not say that creationism is a false doctrine. I simply stated that it is not science.
Every belief requires faith, BTW; your faith is apparently in scientific theories. Have you been there for every scientific experiment to make sure it was done correctly? Have you checked all of their calculations to make sure they're correct? Or do you have faith in their abilities and integrity?
I doubt scientific results that have not been duplicated. When a scientific theory has been duplicated and verified many times it is known as scientific law. However, scientist must remember the types of experiments that verified the law. Newton’s second law did an excellent job of explaining nearly every observable phenomena in mechanics before experiments involved speeds near the speed of light or masses smaller than a 1000 A.M.U. A mathematician can see a resemblance between Schrodinger’s equation and Newton’s second law. If we write Newton’s 2nd law in terms of momentum and use the relativistic definition of momentum Newton’s law is still true. However, physicists understand that a scientific law is only relevant applied to a similar set of variables that were used when the law was developed. Pre-Einstein physicist developed scientific laws using particles that traveled at negligible speeds compared to the speed of light. They should have expected that their would have to be modified when the began to explore relativistic particles.
Science deals with the physical only. It cannot prove scientifically that the non-physical does not exist; it is simply out of its purview.
I agree you have restated my edict. Let’s not call religion science and let’s not call science religion they are different.
Science cannot - if it's honest - say for sure what happened a million years ago; it can only say "If the laws we've discovered have held true all this time and if there was no outside interference then such and such is true." But they don't know if the laws have held steady
In science we call this type of belief a postulate. We postulate that the most fundamental formulas and “constants” are unchanging. We proceed. We presume that our postulates are true until we get evidence that they are not. In example is Hubble’s constant. In 1998 it was discovered that the most distant galaxies are not only moving away from us but are accelerating away from us. This acceleration could be expressed as a time dependent Hubble constant.
, and they don't know if there has been outside interference. Religion, in general, says there has been outside interference, so to speak.
As a Christian, I don't want Genesis taught in the government schools; I do want those schools to acknowledge the limits of science, though.
Again we agree. I was not properly educated on the limits of science until I took Quantum Mechanics as a college junior preparing for graduate study in physics. Many people wrongly believe that the next theory will disprove the present theory. This is not the case. The old scientific law is a special case of the new law. If we start with special relativity and limit our discussion to particles moving at negligible speeds we can derive Newton’s Second law as he wrote it.
Just as in math, you can define f(x) = x/x, and then say that it always equals one,
The mathematicians I know have had many opportunities to make this mistake in my presence. So far they have not. A mathematician would say that in the limit as x approaches 1 in either direction the function is one.
you have to acknowledge that if x = 0 the function is undefined. So the function is limited in its usefulness to situations where x does not equal 0.
Useful is an ambiguous word. The square root of negative 1 is imaginary but still very useful. So useful that I took a semester long course devoted to its study. The course was vital to learning graduate physics.
Science also has its limitations, and that should be acknowledged.
If science is based on experiment, as you say, what experiment tells the age and coming into being of the earth? It's not experiment; it's experiment plus theories plus extrapolation. And the extrapolation only works if there's been no outside interference. But then, I've already touched on that.
The origin of the earth is based on the origin of our solar system. Of course an omniscient all powerful god could have created the earth in seven days. All the scientific evidence we have could be a colossal practical joke to keep us busy. No one can disprove such a claim. Hence it is not science. There are many experiments that support the present theory on the origin of the solar system. There is evidence to support this theory. However if the experiments had yielded different results the theory would be disproven.
The difference between science and religion is it is possible to imagine an experiment that could prove the science wrong.
BTW I am a Christian.
|
|
|
The guys who saw, earth may be a little bit older than 5000 years, were not physics but geologist.
To be more clear, it was James Hutton (1726 - 1797), a scot geologist.
The physics started about 100 years later. (Lord Kelvin (1824 - 1907))
And also the biologist found some interesting facts.
For me it is funny: even today to meat some guys who are not willing to accept the age of the earth :-)
If you do not want to believe the work of the scients, you always have the possibility to proof their work. Please become a geologist, biologist, physics, and and ... everyone is welcome!
|
|
|
Accept what age, noroc? I'm "willing to accept the age of the earth", but you and I and the scientists don't know it, at least not for sure. Again - it's all based on the unprovable assumption that things have remained constant. That takes a lot of faith that I don't have.
|
|
|
You know what is Guano?
You can find it in the Atacama desert, you should go visit this region, very interesing.
|
| 1 2 3 Next |
|
|
|
