Choose your belief

Scientist have no problems in believing in Dark Matter or "The Big Bang" or Evolution just as long as G_d is not involved.  Regardless of whether or not something can be proven or not Scientist are all happy to adopt a "theory" just as long as that theory does not involve a creator or deity.  There is not only rejection of a Deity or Creator or even Intelligent Design, but a rejection of anyone that has a belief in a Deity, Creator, or G_d.   These are supposed to be people among the most intelligent yet there seems to be a self-imposed, block put up in their mind that totally rejects the concept of G_d or an Intelligent Creator, something so great and magnanimous that they would have to admit that they cannot understand or comprehend.   

 

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )
Original Post
OldSalt posted:
gbrk posted:

" Regardless of whether or not something can be proven or not Scientist are all happy to adopt a "theory" "

 

What definition of 'theory' are you using?

noun   (plural theories)   a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:

an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action: my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged.

You are using the wrong definition of ‘theory’ as it pertains to science. Here are two better definitions:

According to the National Academies of Sciences,  a theory is “a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".

The American Association for the Advancement of Science defines a theory as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

As you can see, there are no guesses in a scientific theory. 

Another question - how do you want god to be included in science?

OldSalt posted:

You are using the wrong definition of ‘theory’ as it pertains to science. Here are two better definitions:

According to the National Academies of Sciences,  a theory is “a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".

The American Association for the Advancement of Science defines a theory as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

As you can see, there are no guesses in a scientific theory. 

Another question - how do you want god to be included in science?

Respectfully I disagree.  Scientist, and you may fully believe the definition you put forth is the definition that applies to science but the one I used, and fully believe it to be, is what I meant it to be.  There is no way, regardless of how many "Scientific Facts" that are provided for Science or anyone to absolutely know that which is impossible to know dogmatically.  

As for your additional question, my answer is I don't want G_d to be included in Science for I submit that G_d or anything connected with the Spiritual realm cannot be tested, sampled, or analyzed by Scientific methods but Spiritual Issues rest entirely in the realm of faith something that Science denies is valid even though people exercise faith every day in some measure.

Hebrews 11:1-3 (CSBBible)
1 Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen.
2  For by it our ancestors won God's approval.
3 By faith, we understand that the universe was created by the word of God so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.

The funny thing is Science still doesn't know beans about our own planet or exactly what's in the Core or even has answered all the questions about what lies under the oceans yet they are so confident in how everything became what it is and how everything began.  Science cannot answer with any assurance exactly how large the universe is or if it ends and where if it does nor can any scientist comprehend the concept of eternity, with regards to time whether it's eternity past or eternity future.  Christians do not require answers to all questions for Christians understand that there are things beyond human understanding or comprehension, things which are none the less accepted by Faith alone.  

Science deals with the Physical Realm and cannot accept or envision a Spiritual Realm yet Black Holes, Dark Matter and other things within the Physical Realm is accepted until proved otherwise.  Theories such as Parallel Universes and the like make them feel warm and fuzzy and feel that they have a handle on the things which they cannot know or answer.  

The scriptures haven't changed since they were written yet they apply the same today as they did then.

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 (CEV)
18  The message about the cross doesn't make any sense to lost people. But for those of us who are being saved, it is God's power at work.
19  As God says in the Scriptures, "I will destroy the wisdomof all who claim to be wise.I will confuse thosewho think they know so much."
20  What happened to those wise people? What happened to those experts in the Scriptures? What happened to the ones who think they have all the answers? Didn't God show that the wisdom of this world is foolish?
21  God was wise and decided not to let the people of this world use their wisdom to learn about him. Instead, God chose to save only those who believe the foolish message we preach.
22  Jews ask for miracles, and Greeks want something that sounds wise.
23  But we preach that Christ was nailed to a cross. Most Jews have problems with this, and most Gentiles think it is foolish.
24  Our message is God's power and wisdom for the Jews and the Greeks that he has chosen.
25  Even when God is foolish, he is wiser than everyone else, and even when God is weak, he is stronger than everyone else.
26  My dear friends, remember what you were when God chose you. The people of this world didn't think that many of you were wise. Only a few of you were in places of power, and not many of you came from important families.
27  But God chose the foolish things of this world to put the wise to shame. He chose the weak things of this world to put the powerful to shame.
28  What the world thinks is worthless, useless, and nothing at all is what God has used to destroy what the world considers important.
29  God did all this to keep anyone from bragging to him.
30  You are God's children. He sent Christ Jesus to save us and to make us wise, acceptable, and holy.
31  So if you want to brag, do what the Scriptures say and brag about the Lord.

 

I don’t really understand what you are trying to say. In the first post of this thread you lament that scientist do science without god being involved. Then in your latest reply you say you don’t want god included in science. Pick one. Which is it?  

 

It is an issue that no longer will never come up.  There are Scientist that are Christian but if they want to continue in their field they are closed and quite about their personal beliefs.  My point was simply that many Scientist or people of a Scientific mind will make such dogmatic statements regarding something they absolutely cannot have 100% assurance about yet decry people of faith, Christians, believers, who are, at least in practice and from outward appearance, doing the exact same thing.  There is no respect for people of Faith and no variances are given that would potentially account for a Spiritual existence apart from the Physical realm that Science examines and documents.  

For many, the two system of beliefs or theories, Spiritual and Physical, Science and Faith, cannot mutually coexist but are considered threats to one another.   People of faith are decried and lambasted when they make such dogmatic declarations such as the existence of G_d and objections are raised, in the scientific community when people of faith want Creation added as a potential source for all creation and how it got here.  When Creation or Intelligent Design is mentioned along with evolution as a potential source for all that is and how we got here it is a threat and has to be annihilated and stopped in its tracks not even given a place, at the table, as a theory regardless of the fact that a great number of people accept it as fact and possible answer to the question of where did we all come from.  

There was a time when Creation was the prevalent theory taught and Evolution was excluded altogether, also considered by many as a threat, and many scientist and Evolutionist argued for just a place at the table, a chance to present their theory as a competing theory of the generally accepted.  Evolution was then given its place at the table and in schools yet then as many in power and positions of decision making were the ones making the decisions Creation and Intelligent Design was relegated to be theories of the deranged and no longer deserved a place at the table and they became a threat so were excluded.  That is not the purpose of my post but is an extension of the point I was trying to make.  One person's staunch and dogmatic belief deserves just as much attention and merit as another yet in today's society it is not treated such.  

One group excludes any possibility of G_d yet is willing to accept and entertain any and all other theories of plausible answers to many of life's greatest unanswered and unknown questions just as long as G_d is not a factor in the equation or the answer.  On the other hand, those who are equally dogmatic and determined to believe in G_d, Intelligent Design or a competing theory are dismissed as deranged and even insane even though Science cannot dogmatically and/or with certainty disprove the Spiritual position taken by many people of faith.  One (Science) considers their beliefs and theories or what they accept as unassailable and warrants acceptance alone as the answer to many of mankind's unanswerable questions.  Even though the certainty of their beliefs is equal to that of people of Faith with respect to Spiritual things and to G_d and/or Intelligent Design the positions of Science is the only accepted and teachable method relegating all competitors to the realm of the deranged.  

Now it is Intelligent Design and People of Faith, Christians, seeking inclusion at the table and requesting that their theories and positions at least be given a chance to compete against those of evolution in institutions of learning yet now that evolutionist and those of Scientist, who are not Christians, make the decisions all competing theories, especially those sourced in Religion, must be soundly rejected and excluded from teaching and eliminated as even a possibility even though those beliefs or theories cannot be proven to be false and are accepted and believed by a large percentage of the world's population.  Most cannot even see, or admit, that both systems of belief are valid, if only to a certain subset of people.  Granted there has to be some limitations and restrictions as some exclusions are warranted based on improbability and ability to disprove them but major ones, those accepted by a large percentage of the population should be given their space at the table and be considered just as potentially valid and plausible as the others.

Wow.  I’m sorry you’re offended. But, creationism and intelligent design cannot be science, since they ultimately point to a creator outside the physical universe.  As you said, science deals only with that within the physical realm. 

What makes you think I'm offended?  Not the least the case.  I was just trying to present a complete description but I'm not offended or upset at all.  I agree also that Creation and Intelligent design cannot be science or scientific for it would be impossible for science to prove G_d as G_d is Spirit and not something that can be defined or even analyzed.  That, though, doesn't mean Creation or Intelligent design cannot be taught as a theory accepted by a large  number of people.  I'm also not recommending preaching in education either but just don't exclude that theory just because it deals in the realm of Religion.

The problem we are having is our divergent definitions of what a theory is.  So, I will concede to your definition.  Now I want Hindu creation theory taught in schools as an alternative.  Many people believe in it (there are around 2 billion people in India.) So, it is as valid as your version of creationism. 

 

 

 

 

OldSalt posted:

The problem we are having is our divergent definitions of what a theory is.  So, I will concede to your definition.  Now I want Hindu creation theory taught in schools as an alternative.  Many people believe in it (there are around 2 billion people in India.) So, it is as valid as your version of creationism. 

As for the definition of theory I don't expect you to concede to my definition as  I was just answering your question as to the way -->  I  <---- was using it and you very well can disagree based upon your own understanding of the word and would surely use it in a different way.  From my perspective though that is the way I am using it.   As for the teaching of Hindu creation, I have no problem with that either.  In fact, IF the theory is widespread or popular enough,  I do believe it should be taught because students will likely encounter it at some point in time and should have some understanding of the most prevalent accepted opinions.  

It should be up to those taught to discern which is the most credible and plausible choice for them.  I'm not in favor of teaching any one of them as being the ONLY acceptable choice or choosing one as the correct over the others for that is not the purpose of teaching the various theories but rather test students on their understanding of each position as it is presented.  I know which position/theory that I believe is most plausible for me but I'm not threatened or upset at the teaching of the others as long as it is instructional teaching rather than indoctrination and promoting one above or over the others.

I do, though, believe there has to be some limits and cutoffs as to where to limit the teaching.  As it is it seems, though, teaching has almost been limited to Evolution as the only acceptable or credible version of how we all got here.   For Scientist or at least many of them, they fully accept and believe Evolution to be the case however it should then stand the scrutiny of comparison with other prevalent theories and others should be included rather than excluded and at times even at the cost of instructor's positions who might dare to include other theories or methods.

I do admit that teaching Creation by a single deity (G_d) falls in the realm of Religion, by its nature, but to exclude it claiming separation of Church and State or that someone is trying to preach it is a weak argument as long as it's not being preached or forced.  Again I'm not advocating indoctrination or preaching but rather the inclusion of the theory of Creation rather than the exclusion of it.  IF there is nothing to it then where is the threat?  What is the problem teaching the most prevalent accepted methods that students and people are certain to encounter in their lives?   The same goes for the other most prevalent theories that are accepted by large populations.   

So I'm asking, you, if education and learning is the goal then why exclude all but one theory of how we got here and arrived?  Is teaching that Christians/Muslims/Jewish religions believe that a singular Deity/G_d brought into being everything by His own desire or Hindu's belief or Buddhist such a threat to evolution as long as it is taught for informational purposes and not indoctrination?  Or how about teaching that creation, the Universe, Human life, all that is around us was created by or according to some Intelligent Design whether it be a Deity or much advanced Alien civilization.  Again I'm not advocating teaching every theory or speculation as to how we got here and overloading people with obscure theories but I'm also not comfortable with limiting it to one theory that a select group happens to accept at the exclusion of all the others because those who advocate the acceptable method happen to believe the others are delusional or Religious gibberish.  

It's really not going to matter because it's just my opinion and I'm not in the position to make those decisions but I do feel it is in itself a form of indoctrination and forcing of one opinion upon others which is essentially what was happening when Darwin and Evolution was excluded from educational systems those many years before.  We are essentially doing the exact same thing today only we have switched chosen or accepted theories but we are making decisions for everyone else and excluding all other prevalent opinions/beliefs that I submit are just as viable and acceptable for those many who accept and believe them.  If all are taught with equal weight from an informational basis just as Religion is taught in Religion classes not giving weight to one or another as the correct or chosen one then it is the student that benefits by having a much wider and greater exposure to information.  The student can then decide for themselves which they believe is more credible and/or plausible.  

I admit it does not deserve to be taught as science, I'll agree to that.  I do though believe each should be explained to where there is the ability to know what each position advocates and if that happens in a Science class then so be it but I agree it's not Science, however, it is a competitive theory that, I believe, deserves its space.   After all, there are plenty of things Science has been unable to prove and document yet are taught as Science or taught within that context.

Scientist believes they know and understand what the content of the Sun is made up of or even our own planet but yet they have yet to be able to prove it and have yet to even be able to reach the inner core of the Earth or sample it.  There are still areas under the sea that are to be seen and documented and books are being rewritten all the time due to updated discoveries.  Learning is an ever continual process and elimination of any one position or belief is either short sided or biased (that's my own belief).  Science may not be able to prove Creation but it also cannot disprove it.  Maybe to the satisfaction of some, it can but realistically, dogmatically, it cannot disprove it. 

Again, I agree with you as it not being Science however that is no reason to exclude it for if ever it was proven then it becomes scientific fact.  Until then we are just dealing with various and different theories.  My own belief is that each, prevalent one, deserves its due.  But that's just my own opinion.

 

gbrk posted:

I admit it does not deserve to be taught as science, I'll agree to that.  I do though believe each should be explained to where there is the ability to know what each position advocates and if that happens in a Science class then so be it but I agree it's not Science, however, it is a competitive theory that, I believe, deserves its space.   After all, there are plenty of things Science has been unable to prove and document yet are taught as Science or taught within that context.

Scientist believes they know and understand what the content of the Sun is made up of or even our own planet but yet they have yet to be able to prove it and have yet to even be able to reach the inner core of the Earth or sample it.  There are still areas under the sea that are to be seen and documented and books are being rewritten all the time due to updated discoveries.  Learning is an ever continual process and elimination of any one position or belief is either short sided or biased (that's my own belief).  Science may not be able to prove Creation but it also cannot disprove it.  Maybe to the satisfaction of some, it can but realistically, dogmatically, it cannot disprove it. 

Again, I agree with you as it not being Science however that is no reason to exclude it for if ever it was proven then it becomes scientific fact.  Until then we are just dealing with various and different theories.  My own belief is that each, prevalent one, deserves its due.  But that's just my own opinion.

 

GB, if you believe your God created the earth you live in, then what
is referred to as science can only exist byway of God's creation.
A natural order of logic always follows rain, fire or human hemoglobin.
One couldn't be created without the other. The creation itself and the
reason/logic behind it's existence from the start....
 
If you believe the mud puppy created itself, then its becomes a lot
more complicated-- 

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×