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

[quote]Science is a method that is applied to nature.[/quote]

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

[quote]Which has an annoying habit of working.[/quote]

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

[quote]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.[/quote]

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.

[quote]Evolution has evidence that’s equal to gravity being factual.[/quote]

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

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

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

[quote]Models have been made and the results show evolution is true.[/quote]

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 »

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

[quote]What, then, is evolution?[/quote]

evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles.

It is a [i]process[/i]

The [i]mechanism[/i] of that process is Natural Selection

Natural Selection is differential reproductive rates within constantly changing environments.

BibleData · M

@newjaninev2 [quote]evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles.

It is a process

The mechanism of that process is Natural Selection

Natural Selection is differential reproductive rates within constantly changing environments.[/quote]

Is science cultural?

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@BibleData What an extraordinary question. Science is a methodology.

BibleData · M

@newjaninev2 Well, yes, of course, but what sort, if any, cultural influence is there involved, not in the methodology but in the - uh, how should I word this - acceptance or mistrust. I was thinking about racism and culture from Thomas Sowell and it made me think of science.

[media=https://youtu.be/FT4NQ9D0M6w]

I wonder what would be the cultural effect of science or where it approximated from or something like that.

I'm bored.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@BibleData Science requires evidence. Any assertions based on culture, skin pigmentation, social milieu, or superstition, have an equal need to bring evidence to the table.

Equally, science cares not one whit about its effect on any of those assertions.

BibleData · M

@newjaninev2 Yes, I've made the same point somewhere here. So, the answer to your question is that culture has no effect or impact on science? And that would include archaeology, which is pretty interpretive as far as science goes. Or, is it.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@BibleData I don’t know... I have only lay knowledge of archaeology.

Note that science doesn’t require [i]interpretations[/i] of the evidence... it requires complete, coherent, and consistent, [i]explanations[/i] of the evidence. These are called Theories, which are, of course, the acme of scientific achievement.

BibleData · M

@newjaninev2 [quote]Note that science doesn’t require interpretations of the evidence.[/quote]

How is it that you can not interpret the evidence, especially given that it can be corrected in the process of the methodology? Is the explanation not from the interpretation?

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@BibleData [quote]corrected in the process of the methodology[/quote]

I don’t know what you’re trying to say with that

BibleData · M

@newjaninev2 The methodology comes from an interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists (you heard me) always say it's about evidence as if evidence doesn't have two sides and implying that the evidence is irrefutable. There has to be interpretation. If it can be corrected, or evolve, as it were, then it is reinterpreted.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@BibleData The methodology leads to an explanation of the evidence.

How does evidence have two sides? A demonstrable, repeatable, consistent observation is exactly that.

It might be shown to fail any or all of those criteria, at which point it will have no evidentiary value. It is not 'corrected’.

But if it stands, then it requires [i]explanation.[/i]

BibleData · M

@newjaninev2 How much money would I have to raise on a go fund me page to hire an evolutionist to create a model on a computer on creation? Since they obviously can't do it with evolution.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@BibleData With creation, it’s free. The computer simply has to display ‘the gods did it’ as the answer for everything.

If you want a predictive model for evolution, you’ll be out of luck, because evolution isn’t teleological... that’s the whole point of evolution by Natural Selection! 😀
Evolution has no goal, no ideal end point, so there’s nothing towards which a model could ever ‘progress’.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment