Religion & Spirituality

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Science Vs Theology

I begin this thread with a response to a post made off topic and in a forum where the topic isn't particularly appropriate.

@BlueSkyKing

Science is a method that is applied to nature.

How is it applied to nature, is it infallible, and does the method work with the supernatural?

Which has an annoying habit of working.

Conjectural. It also has an "annoying habit" of not working.

To call something a legitimate theory, it mean models can be designed and tested. Can’t design any? Then you don’t have a theory, just wishful thinking and speculation.

Then a model designed is wishful thinking and speculation and the test is fallible, possibly biased to appeal to dogmatic peer review, corrupted due to conflict of interest, especially resulting from funding, possibly misrepresented through publishing? What you have to understand about my approach is that I see great potential in science just as I do theology but I'm also very skeptical of both due to their obvious weaknesses.

So, when you talk to me I can give you stunning examples of those weakness in theology. Can you give the same for science? Because I can see them in science. I don't hear those sort of discussions from science enthusiasts. In fact less than I hear them in enthusiasts of theology. Keeping in mind the important distinction between "science" and "theology" and their respective enthusiasts.

Evolution has evidence that’s equal to gravity being factual.

Factual? Can the factual correct itself? Is science self correcting? Evidence? The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

This evidence is detectable, measurable, observable, testable, and falsifiable. Yeah, that’s a lot of -ables.

And the detection, measuring, observation, testing and falsifiability are infallible?

Models have been made and the results show evolution is true.

What, then, is evolution? Change? Like climate change?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ElwoodBlues · M

“When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p. 187.

“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
— Richard P. Feynman

Unfortunately, theology, in general, has no such test. The domain of science is the domain of statements, theories, assertions - call them what you will - that can be tested; either by observation or by experiment. Very little in the domain of theology is testable.

Hence there is very little crossover between science and theology. Hence there is very little scope for them to agree or disagree.

P.S.
Just to be clear, science is not a collection of theories or equations or explanations of nature or whatever. Science is the method that tested those theories or equations or explanations or whatever, and science is always ready to deal with new data or observations or experiments and use them to improve the old theories or equations or explanations or whatever.

Over the short term, science is a fallable as the humans who practice it; over the long term, the scientific method weeds out and/or corrects and updates the old theories or equations or explanations or whatever.

1-25 of 62

Pfuzylogic · M

@ElwoodBlues
I see the fundamental conflict in what those that accept science as the final word oppose what theologians look to as truth. The times of fundamental truths are different. The search for answers on the universe are different.
A long standing assertion. of the big bang and evolution has been proposed as truth and are quite a different story then what is presented in Genesis.

ElwoodBlues · M

@Pfuzylogic OK, you're right, biblical literalists will have conflicts all over.

But I know Christians who have studied various sciences - some even widely published - who have no problem interpreting many parts of the Bible (such as creation) as parables. And it ain't just "I know somebody."

In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism.

In other words, mainstream catholocism, representing 1.3 billion believers, is determined that there be no conflict between science and theology. If they can take that stand, so can I.

Pfuzylogic · M

@ElwoodBlues
Now we can discuss this.
Science has a very tough time in admitting it’s limitations in measuring.
The big bang has come under serious fire as the “egg” concept of LeMaitre has proven lacking. Everything for the Hubble LeMaitre law is based on the red shift. Intelligent scientists are admitting that the predictive qualities the theories are suppose possess let alone Laws are failing form more sensitive measurements.
Imagine that, Science supported by a false concept to prove religion even Catholicism “wrong” when they present false theories to do that.
As Sir Roger Penrose exclaimed to Hawking on his false premise “brilliant!”

ElwoodBlues · M

@Pfuzylogic I don't think the Catholics or the cosmologists are wedded to one particular value or polynomial for the Hubble expansion. I think the Catholics are going to say that valid observations are valid observations and they won't contradict catholic theology.

And the cosmologists accomodated 'inflation' when it came along, they accomodated dark matter, and they're currently struggling with dark energy. But the process of improving theories continues. The method still applies.

BTW, I did a quick look for cosmic distance measurements independent of redshift (and the Hubble-Lemaître expansion theory). Type 1A supernovas get us out to over a billion light years. Those 1A observations form the basis for expansion estimates. But there's still a LOT of universe out beyond the billion light year radius that we can observe and learn new things from and polish our theories with. And the Webb telescope (especially combined with gravitational lensing) is designed to gather new info from the rest of the observable universe.

BibleData · M

@ElwoodBlues

Over the short term, science is a fallable as the humans who practice it; over the long term, the scientific method weeds out and/or corrects and updates the old theories or equations or explanations or whatever.

So is science more often wrong than not, or is science only science when we think we may have gotten it right? Science is never the postulation of advice on what to do with it's findings, though it is very often used in that way to the detriment of mankind? Like theology?

I disagree that theology can't be tested in the same way, in fact anything can. Even infants do this as they develop. In play, in exploration, language, learning.

BibleData · M

@Pfuzylogic

I see the fundamental conflict in what those that accept science as the final word oppose what theologians look to as truth.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean. The fundamental truth of science is temporal, while the fundamental truth of theology is amaranthine? I think there is some confusion here on what theology is. Theology is the study of the nature of gods and religious belief. So, it isn't what (just) the Bible says, it is what we think the Bible means.

The times of fundamental truths are different. The search for answers on the universe are different.

Agreed.

A long standing assertion. of the big bang and evolution has been proposed as truth and are quite a different story then what is presented in Genesis.

Okay, yes, I suppose, though I think in the context of this discussion, it is astoundingly important to recognize that science doesn't test the supernatural and skeptics who are pretty much science signaling in almost abject ignorance are really bad at interpreting the Bible and especially the Genesis creation account.

ElwoodBlues · M

@BibleData asks:

So is science more often wrong than not, or is science only science when we think we may have gotten it right?

Your making a major false assumption here. You want science to be a collection of narratives or or assertions or something. That's not what it is.

Science is not a collection of theories or equations or explanations of nature or whatever. Science is the method that tested those theories or equations or explanations or whatever.

The scientific method is our best tool so far for constructing theories and explanations that accurately predict future measurements and future experiments. But science isn't magic. It isn't perfect. Maybe some better method will come along some day. But right now it's our best tool, our best method.

Pfuzylogic · M

@ElwoodBlues
With all of the theories from the 19th and 20th century proven flawed by recent data I personally that the method of Science is flawed. Currently they will lock all of the scientists in a room and come out with an agreed theory that they think can not be proved wrong as opposed to a model that will predict further observations.
Scientists should contain an extensive error analysis so they criticize their own theories and laws. To think that the Hubble LeMaitre Law is going away because red shift is error and not a valid measurement has to be a true embarrassment for many scientists. It is funny how some of the less competent scientists hold onto the theories despite contradicting evidence. It is a case of belief over evidence with some of the tired theories.

bystander · 70-79, M

@Pfuzylogic

theory that they think can not be proved wrong

science tries to show its theories are wrong, expects all theories to be falsified, and puts a great deal of effort into achieving that

walabby · M

@Pfuzylogic Is the Hubble LeMaitre Law going away? I haven't heard. My thoughts are that intense gravitation fields cause red shift too, and maybe some of those distant red shifted galaxies may just have a lot of gravity, and not be as far away as first thought?

Pfuzylogic · M

@walabby
The idea is that what was considered to be empty space is actually not empty but contains energy that seems to come out of nowhere. This would definitely effect shifting of waves and the nervy absorbed and or shifted from same distances.

walabby · M

@Pfuzylogic The Zero Point Field?

Pfuzylogic · M

@walabby
It is almost anathema to the zero point energy because it is considered that energy exists even in a zero point field

ElwoodBlues · M

@Pfuzylogic

With all of the theories from the 19th and 20th century proven flawed by recent data

I'm not so sure that's accurate.

While it's true that general relativity has supplanted Newton's law of gravity, GR survived a recent attempt to falsify it (see below). And Maxwell's equations are still valid because they're invariant under Lorentz transformations.

And it's important to note that the late 19th century physics, although theoretically falsified, is still widely used because it still provides accurate answers under most circumstances. For example, the GR correction to GPS is about 1 foot (= 1 nanosecond). If your satellite positioning and timing needs don't require 1 part per billion accuracy (and most folks don't), you can safely stick with late 19th century physics.

It's safe to say physics has been refining rather than overturning. GR must agree with Newton in the limit of low gravity & low velocity. Quantum mechanics must agree with classical in the limit of large quantum numbers.

Physics knows that its version of the quantum realm doesn't mesh with its version of gravitation, and it's working on that. But the existing theories are so accurate that any new theory will only provide corrections under the most extreme circumstances.

In short, I don't think all of the theories from the 19th and 20th century have been proven flawed .

Recent GR test https://www.space.com/einstein-general-relativity-passes-pulsar-test

Pfuzylogic · M

@ElwoodBlues
Let me get very specific.
big bang and evolution are defunct.

ElwoodBlues · M

@Pfuzylogic I disagree on both counts. Big bang is being refined; the red shift still exists.

I know of nothing supplanting evolution. Natural selection is still happening.

Pfuzylogic · M

@ElwoodBlues
Maybe in Charles time back in the 19th century it is forgivable for a scientist to think cells were made of gelatin. They aren’t. There are 20 different amino acids and the smallest protein chain is 100. Do the math of permutations using natural selection logic and you will find it takes trillions and trillions and trillions of years to make one protein in optimum conditions.

ElwoodBlues · M

@Pfuzylogic Trillions and trillions of years ... OR ... one year and trillions and trillions of amino acids. Parallel processing!

Pfuzylogic · M

@ElwoodBlues
This is suppose to be a serious discussion. Natural selection does not work. Most z gen cheat with artificial selection as if that could be a thing ever.

ElwoodBlues · M

@Pfuzylogic I am serious. The oceans are big. Amino acids are small. Amino acids have been detected in nebulae and in the tails of comets and created by spark discharge. You can't assume they're rare.

Pfuzylogic · M

@ElwoodBlues
think about the permutations of 20 amino acids. It is a lot more that a trillion. we are talking huge exponents.

ElwoodBlues · M

@Pfuzylogic There are 321 million cubic MILES of water in the ocean. That's about 1.33X10^24 cubic centimeters. We HAVE huge exponents.

Pfuzylogic · M

@ElwoodBlues
Natural selection is a sequential process which doesn’t even count the time it takes for twenty different amino acids to be there in the first place. You are missing the impossibility of time that has taken place so far let alone in the Cambrian age how many species “evolved” in only millions of years but i see it isn’t connecting.

ElwoodBlues · M

@Pfuzylogic

Natural selection is a sequential process

'm not sure I agree with that.

Let's take the case of Covid. According to an NIH publication, "We estimate that each infected person carries 10^9–10^11 virions during peak infection." roughly, at the time of peak infection in the US (Jan '22), 500,000 new infections were being logged daily. A Covid virus replication cycle takes about 10 hours.

So that's about 10^16 virons in American bodies, replicating every 10 hours day after day, busily hijacking the machinery of the cell to make copies of themselves. IN PARALLEL. Nothing sequential about that process. It happens in parallel in each body, and of course it all 500,000 are infected in parallel. Again, nothing sequential about 500,000 people infected simultaneously.

Pfuzylogic · M

@ElwoodBlues
You are not talking about creating something from the very beginning from nothing. again natural selection.
Even in optimum conditions there has not been enough time to evolve by natural selection. I understand you have your personal epistemology that needs to believe in evolution and ignore the racist motivations that started it.
Chronologically it is impossible to build proteins in the supposed time we have existed.

1-25 of 62