Science isn't All That Reliable...

If the data is incomplete as you state, then your conclusions are also inconclusive. In other words, you cannot make a definitive conclusive statement based on a partial set of data. The most you can do is make a 'best guess' effort. Subsequently the evolution theory has not been proven... by your own admission above regarding "The data is incomplete..."

 

Nobody is saying that the conclusions ARE conclusive! Nothing in science IS conclusive. MAN, you REALLY love strawman arguments. BUT, it works. This is how science progresses. This is how theories are formed, through observations. And right now, the theory of evolution IS the best we have. It certainly isn't complete, but it sure as hell fits what we see.

 

Creationism isn't a science, nor is it mutually exclusive from evolution. Why can't you believe in both? Unless you're speaking of Young Earth Creationism.

 

In other words, evolution theory fits what you want to see, because you don't have all the data, then you can only hope that someday the data will be found to make a complete set. Until then, you place your faith and or confidence on something that has not been proven to be a FACT. FACT being a complete set of data that would allow for an indisputable conclusion to be drawn. Welcome to the world of 'religion'. Science in search of the Holy Grail of Evolution.

 

No, it fits what we DO see, and only the steadfastly uneducated see it as some sort of conspiracy. The only reason Creationists such as yourself argue against evolution is because they see it as an affront to their religion. That is the ONLY reason. There is no scientific evidence for Creationism. We have the same people arguing against the old age of the Universe or the Earth because of the same issue. I don't see Creationists arguing against the Cell Theory or the Theory of Gravity.

Does that mean that I have faith in Gravity as well? Do I have faith in the Cell Theory? Because I can't SEE gravity, it must be faith? Because I can't see a cell without a microscope, it must be faith? The same goes for the Atomic Theory. Why not argue that is faith too? We can't even SEE an atom, yet nobody calls it faith to assume that they are there.

 

Gravity is such that there is no intellectual reason to justify the building of a theory of gravity... gravity speaks for itself... As for the age of the earth... even Einstein had a negative remark to make about mathematics (I have posted that remark in the past), and all of the rationalizations regarding the age of the earth are based upon some form of mathematics. Blame Einstein for my reluctance in accepting those calculations which are used to form a ridiculous number out of thin air. As for my reasons for speaking against evolution, it is simply the matter of the intellectual dishonesty that is being employed to promote that theory. You have admitted that you don't have a complete set of data, yet you fight tooth and nail to defend that "Belief" that you possess with regard to that theory. As for what you 'do see', you have not the capability of 'seeing' anything more than what is available to see in this present day and age.

If you would like for me to start referencing those things as a matter of faith, then I will gladly oblige you. Why? Because one of the basic tenets of science is the act of 'observing'. When you state that your instrumentation is making a signal of some sort telling you that it has detected something, you are not observing that 'something' you are observing that observer (the instrument) doing something in response to something else. You cannot validate what that something else is, because you have not personally observed that something. When measuring Current flow with a current meter, what are you actually measuring? Not current.. you are merely measuring a difference in potential. The potential that is measured is monitored by means of manufacturing an electromechanical device that is tuned to abide by the mathematical models that have been previously formulated; but you are not in FACT measuring the number of "electrons" flowing through a circuit.
Is that number that is revealed accepted as a matter of 'faith'? In one sense of the word, yes! Why? Because none of us have the capability of manually counting or observing the number of 'electrons' that pass through a circuit. The use of voltage and current comparators come in very handy for that purpose. All mathematics as applied to the field of electronics. Other issues in the field of electronics are coming to light that proves a lot of the old textbook theories to be false.

 

Science hasn't brought us a perfect understanding of the natural world. Our observations aren't perfect either. Even our own senses can easily be fooled. As far as I can tell, those are statements we can all agree on. In other words, everything we've ever seen, heard, smelled, or felt could have been an illusion and all the conclusions we've ever drawn from those observations are unreliable.

If even the slightest level of uncertainty is unacceptable, we're screwed and our whole lives come to a screeching halt. After all, even the simplest tasks in our daily lives are based on many observations and assumptions. Just pause for a moment when you have your next meal and ponder about all the assumptions you're just making. For example, ask yourself whether eating is really necessary.

What should we do, Incorporeal?

 

You are seemingly on the right path, but asking the wrong person. Please direct your question to someone more qualified to answer it than I am.

 

Do you know where to find such a qualified person?

How do you, personally, cope with all those uncertainties?

 

Uh, you mean like the Theory of General Relativity? (The current working theory of gravity).

Yes, Einstein is the do-all end-all source for everything. If Einstein ever had a slight against something, it must be flawed!

Such as...?

Yes, some people do in fact have something against people trying to tarnish the theory of evolution based upon their misguided knowledge. People like you, if you didn't catch that.

Yeah, except "observation" in science doesn't mean necessarily observing something your own eyes.

 

I sure do, but I am not certain that you would be receptive to my response. At the sound of the spiritual guide I will turn my trust over to the Lord and tell you in spite of my uncertainty regarding your receptivity. The right place to find such a qualified person, would be at the foot of the Cross; looking skyward and giving your problems to the Lord and asking Him to bear that load for you.

Like an infant child just learning how to walk. One step at a time and seeking assistance when I stumble and fall. If the fall is sharp enough to cause pain, then I look for someone to comfort me and to dry the tears and to encourage me to continue on. It is not an easy road, but it is one that I enjoy traveling.

 

If you say so.

Gee.. you seem to be a little bit flighty right now. IN the first paragraph, you appear to compliment Einstein in his overthrow of Newton, and now I detect a note of cynicism in the second paragraph. Hmmm. Interesting.

Such as arbitrary numbers that were chosen to represent a decay rate that had never before been recorded but only worked out as a mathematical model. Then based on that arbitrary choice of numbers, an extrapolation was made which arbitrarily declared that the earth was billions of years old. That is quite a stretch from science being dependent upon "FACTS", especially when ole Einstein declared that the numbers were arbitrary when it comes to 'reality'.

Much the same as some people would have a problem with people who try to tarnish God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit based upon their IGNORANCE of that subject matter. People like you, if you didn't catch that.

Then if you observe something other than what you allege you are observing then you are making a misrepresentation of fact. For example... you cannot say that you are observing electron flow when in fact you are observing an electromechanical device. You yourself have already stated that you cannot observe electrons.

 

Is this the room for the spewing of logical fallacies?

 

Depending on which philosophy you are employing.

 

I respect your offer, but I wasn't looking for someone else to bear a burden. I was looking for an answer to a pragmatic worldly question: "How should we deal with uncertainty?"

That's my life.

I'd wish that more adults would retain the curiosity of a child. Unfortunately, many adults are looking for absolute certainty instead. As soon as they find that certainty somewhere, there is nothing left to explore for them. Inquiry, discovery, and learning stops. At that point, all we can do is hope that their mindset isn't destructive. After all, it can't be changed anymore.

 

The world is full of uncertainties. No-one can be certain of the very next breath that they take, as there are no written guaranties pertaining to everyday life. There is an old adage that I like to use and it is one that is secular as opposed to any religion. "There is only one pragmatic absolute in life: we will all live until we die. Anything else is subjective and is subject to a myriad of variables that may or may not apply to the individual persons life." That is an infallible secular truth.

Even though there are so many uncertainties, I continue with my exploring different options, and inquiry , discovery and learning does not stop. Each day, I find myself learning more about life, about society, about science, about religion, about economics... there simply is no end to the learning process until each person determines within their own being that there is no more learning to be found. I can guaranty you this... even if you think that you know all there is to know in life, when you start exploring the depths of your own mind, you will find more there to amaze you than you would ever have thought possible.

Are you open to a PM where I can provide you with some enjoyable reading?

 

I wouldn't go that far. Science tells us how things most likely are in the universe. Just because scientists do have faults, doesn't make science useless. Look what science has done for our lives.

Scientists proving that dinosaurs evolved from birds does not contradict the fact that they where reptiles.

It's easy to see how some may want to believe that. We never notice the earth moving at thousands of miles per hour. People still say the sun rises, even though they know full well that it does not revolve around us.

Actually that's not true. At that time, it was already believed that there where 4 elements. Aristotle gave the elements purpose and movement. Air and fire, naturally move upward' and earth, and water downward. Aristotle added a fifth element called "ether" which was the material that made up the stars.

 

There where other scientists before Ptolemy's time that believed in a heliocentric orbit. Problem was is that until Copernicus, there was no way to prove it. Ptolemy's model was accepted because his model just seemed natural. We don't feel the earth moving under our feet. Whether you want to believe it or not, Ptolemy was an astronomer. He was just wrong. Science did not get it's start in the Enlightenment. Are you simply going to ignore centuries of scientific discoveries made by Christian and Ancient Greek Scientists? I suggest you look up the accomplishments of the Ionian Scientists, as well as the discoveries made by the Catholic Church, specifically the Jesuits.

Actually, he was much more than that. Born of Ionian parents, Aristotle took a great interest in the natural sciences, especially biology. In Generation of Animals, Aristotle studies the birth, and reproduction of animals, birds, insects, and human beings. His organizing principles remained the basis for the study of nature for the next 2000 years.

One might call Aristotle a Renaissance Man born 18 centuries early. He embraced all fields of learning embraced by the ancients, including metaphysics, logic, astronomy, biology, physics, political science, and poetry.

 

There are no absolutes in science. Hence, science is fallible. Considerations as to the reliability of science is a key component of the scientific method. Scientists are people. As such, science will always be suceptible to the failures and inadiquacies of human nature. No one is denying that the history of science is not without its failures, corruptions or perversions but it is important to note that in modern times the scientific process has been structured in a manner that is intended to minimize these failures- ie peer review, disclosure of data/methods etc. Today, the greatest failure of science is not its unreliability so much as it is the failure of scientists to convey the complexities of scientific findings to the public in a manner that is palatable to the average soul. The theory of evolution is a perfect example. Because there are no absolute truths in science the theory of evolution should not be considered an absolute truth. A scientific theory can be thought of as a model of reality, and its statements as axioms of some axiomatic system. The aim of this construction is to create a formal system for which reality is the only model. A scientific theory is used to denote the MOST RELIABLE explanation of a given principle. In functional terms, a theory is as close to truth as science will ever get. As a biologist I am terribly troubled that more than half of our nation does not accept the theory of evolution. All scientific data/observations support the theory of evolution without exception. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that contradicts the common descent of all life from a single common ancestor. The arguments made against the theory of evolution are based on misunderstandings of the actual science, misinformation, or outright lies. Arguing against evolutionary theory is just as irrational as arguing against the theory of gravity. I'd be happy to explain the theory to those who do not accept it through a PM conversation. Theories are not proof of an absolute truth so much as they prove that any competing explanations of a principle are absolutely false. Because the scientific method does not deal in absolutes, the body of scientific knowledge is always changing as new discoveries expand, change or alter our understanding of a principle. As such, science books are being continuosly rewritten. Comparatively, religious texts are seldom rewritten as their is no need to rewrite the bible so long as it is not used as a science text.

 

WOw, that was a bunch.

Evolution as written is flawed (natural selection) can be found almost reversed since accepted based on the ideology of reductionary scope versus the intent of the life to exist (instinctive purpose), which is the proper frame. For example; in chemistry the reduction of reactions versus what you see in biology as eating or growing (a progression).

Evolution is not 'proven' within the scope of "factually grounded" because there is no accepted paradigm to math to describe the property of 'life' (emergent property) or in my own words 'the energy upon mass'.

The bible is not comparable to science at it has preconceived (a priori) foundations,

What can be compared is that evolution of both theologies and sciences to at least identify the process in itself. e.g...... torah-bible-quran...... as compared to ptolemaic-heliocentric-relative universes.

knowledge itself evolves

 

I'm not picking up what your putting down here. Can you elaborate upon these three sentences. What exactly are you trying to say???

 

Science doesn't deal in proof

Yes it does. In fact not a single fossil has been found that casts significant doubt on evolution. NONE. NADA. ZERO.

No it's not. There are many known links. There are no CREATIONIST-STYLE missing links because creationists have no idea what they're talking about.

And neither do you. You don't know enough about evolution to agree OR disagree with it. And it is in this that I'm confident in my assessment that you are dishonest. An honest person in your position would WITHHOLD JUDGMENT.

 

At the molecular level, there is no math to represent an 'evolution' of a biological system otherwise, the comprehension of evolution would be elementary.

ie.... chemistry is based on a reductionary scope which is bound to planck/bohr.

 

I'm still not exactly certain as to what point your trying to make but I'm assuming your trying to suggest that we can not quantify evolution in mathematical terms. In actuality, mathamatics is used to quantify evolution. For example, Modern phylogenetics relies heavily on the mathematical analysis of nucleotide sequence information. Although there is debate about what actually quantifies a species it is common practice to use the percentage of ribosome sequence similarity to define taxonomic units. Long story short, Mathematics is very much a part of evolutionary biology.

 

on a macro scale but not at the molecular.

And the reason is, plancks scope of entropy bound to the physics (direction in time (to equilibrate).

The math to that scale is what i do. But if you comprehend electrical theory, then there is math than can share an evolution of the signal (transmition)

i understand that as the ratios will show the probabilities of the evolution but the practice is not based on the mass/energy performance and quantified.