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
How is it applied to nature, is it infallible, and does the method work with the supernatural?
Conjectural. It also has an "annoying habit" of not working.
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.
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.
And the detection, measuring, observation, testing and falsifiability are infallible?
What, then, is evolution? Change? Like climate change?
@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?
