Tuesday, February 20, 2007

The Philosophy Of Science

The Philosophy of Science is not something I have really given any thought to, it always seemed so obvious what Science is that it didn't really need defining. In light of those damn Intelligent Designers/Creationists I've come to realise that this isn't the case. The people that push ID in the states are making a consistent attempt to redefine the definition of Science so that it can include supernatural explanations, which is clearly utter bullshit. Their main aim is simply to redefine Science so broadly that they can get past the requirement for separation of church and state in the US and begin to teach Creationisms bastard offspring, ID, in schools.

My own personal view on what Science is (and is not) is fairly simple. Science is the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world through purely natural explanations (no magic thank you). For a theory to be scientifically valid it has to do two things, it must make predictions about phenomena, and importantly those predictions must be falsifiable. It is on this second point that Intelligent Design falls down, this paper which is fairly short (6 pages) and can be understood by anyone (no maths at all) makes very interesting reading for anyone interested in why Intelligent Design will always remain non-science. Its also fairly good at elucidating just what Science is about. Note: As is this blog post which contains the excellently succinct definition of Science favoured by Richard Feynman: "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

I would personally put the Scientific Method as one of the pinnacles of human achievement, leading to a level of knowledge and control over the natural world incomprehensible to our less enlightened ancestors. To think that people want to change that because they see it as a challenge to their faith is beyond me. Get over it, why should the Creation story in the Bible interpreted literally when other parts are interpreted allegorically? How many Creationists that believe you will go to hell if you don't believe the literal truth of Genesis, also follow all of the commandments in the Bible, including ones like:

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) (Presumably in case you start to wear clothes that look a little bit fruity, if you know what I mean.)

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.(Leviticus 20:9) (I imagine they would die out quickly if they were putting their kids to death for a little bit of back chat.)

Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed (Leviticus 21:17-18) (Doesn't sound very Christian does it? But there you go, the disabled are clearly not allowed to worship at the altar of God.)

Its the selectivity of their arguments that drives me nuts, some parts have to be believed without question, but the actual commandments of God, well you can pick and choose which of those you like the sound of.

Many people worry that the wingnuts are attempting redefine the things they don't agree with to gain more control and brainwash more people into their frankly ludicrous outlook, this may be true, but I always tend to look at why people are really doing this, fear. Inside every Creationist is the constant gnawing fear that they are wrong, they hope for certainty in numbers, after all if everyone believes what they do then they must be right, right? Their actions are not driven by any perceived rightness of their beliefs but by their obvious weakness in the face of real evidence. They cannot win on a level scientific playing field (hey we have the fossils) so they attempt to alter the rules to improve their chances.

1 comment:

Friend17 said...

Well, How should i begin?

Science can neither prove or disprove evolution, *one fact being, how did the first living cell come about?

magic? can it be testable? it can be hypothesized but no human was there and thats why materialist assume that through time, a soup of random elements and some lighting, our Frankenstein cell came about.

The Truth is that ONE cell contains soooo much complexity and information that to say that through chance it just "happened" is just too much Faith to put in such "Theory" and Evolution almost becomes a religion.

Materialists also justify evolution by saying that evolution takes millions of years to occur and to truly prove that evolution occurs, one must be there to see it millions of years later.
of course no one living now will be there to prove it.

Therefore they can prove it but supposibly only millions of years later if one could be there.

This Justification shows how great scientist go to protect evolution.

They Find it Detestable to even think of an answer as simple as the Account of Genesis, Where God Created...

The difference between evolution and creationism is the fact that our evidence is the bible, where God, the creator is a great mysterious power that is not visible so of course, it just cannot not not not be true.

But Truth is that no one was there to witness this but God, Through Genesis we see the ONLY account of the Beginning that humans have.
and to materialistic scientists, unless someone was there and took pictures it cannot be true.

At the end, what Evolution ends up being is really the same idea behind Genesis. Just taking out The God Part. and replacing it with "Chance" and "Millions of Millions of Years" and "putting some nice scientific terms so it is passed as straight down materialistic science"

Another Thought is how Scientist Manipulate, Interestingly the Law of Biogenesis States that life can only be passed on by living things.
therefore becoming a barrier for Evolution so of course these materialistic scientists had to find a way around this saying that through different "conditions" in some ancient past, Life emerged from non-life.

While im not here to endorse that Creation is "scientifically" proven, i can say that to trust a flawed Theory just to stay in this materialistic "realm" is just too ignorant to take as truth, and to make it the only beginning just because theres nothing "better" is a big gamble where there will be many losers.
While Our Bibles don't hold EVERY answer that materialist will throw at us, God intended it as a way of revealing some part of how great He is and a way to let us know the basic things we need to know about us and Him.

It comes down to Faith.
either Christian Faith or Evolutionary Faith.

One thing i have to say is Scientist have been wrong before and what can tell us that they won't be wrong again?

Coming back to the Leviticus laws, Those laws were given to the people of Israel.
It was The covenant God had with the Nation of Israel

Those Laws were intended for the Nation of Israel, they were Laws that were to shape the nation to better themselves. just as there are laws here in the US for the better, those laws helped Israel.

Later on the new testament if you keep reading, s lot of these laws were terminated thanks to the Mercy of God by supplying the Ultimate Sacrifice (Jesus Christ)
or the new Covenant
Laws like Leviticus 7:22

And the Lord spoke to Moses saying. speak unto the children of Israel, saying , ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.

And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with beasts may be used in any other use, but ye shall in no wise eat of it.

were canceled, through the new covenant.
1 Corinthians 10:23-26
23"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."[c]

you should have done some more research before saying that.

in the future, i hope you investigate before you come to a conclusion because that my friend is science basics.

*i just gave some insight, theres so much more facts.

Two good websites if you're heart is willing.

God Bless.