True science is irrefutable truth isn't it?

Question

I can admit pure water is chemically H2O. That is irrefutably true.
I can admit electrons pass from one atom to another under conduction. That is irrefutably true.
I can admit that 1+1=2. That is irrefutable truth.
I can admit that in DNA all the code needed to determine a person's physical characteristics are found. Irrefutable at this time.

There is no proof of evolution on the scale that humanists or secular Christians claim. Not one shred of verifiable truth.
God made the universe exnihilo. He did it the way the Bible said He did it.
Where I will differ with other Christians is that Adam and Eve were in the garden for millions of years before they were cast out. They were created perfect and had no decay in their bones. Once they sinned however, that is when they began to die and Adam's years began to be counted.
There is nothing said in the Bible about how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they began to die.

Evolution is not science.

Blackacre, My argument is that as a religion, evolution is faith based and does not need proof. Science needs proof. The Bible is a faith based book and not a science manual. Even though there are scientific principals found in the Bible, the theory of evolution parades itself as true science when in fact it is a religion based on faith, faith that there is no God.

betterdeadthansorry,
You didn't read everything I wrote did you?

Answer 1

I think the fundamental flaw with your argument lies in this part of your post:

"I can admit pure water is chemically H2O. That is irrefutably true.
I can admit electrons pass from one atom to another under conduction. That is irrefutably true.
I can admit that 1+1=2. That is irrefutable truth.
I can admit that in DNA all the code needed to determine a person's physical characteristics are found. Irrefutable at this time."

First, I'd like to point out that one of the four statements above differs importantly from the other three.

The statement about math can be known to be true with certainty, because it rests on axioms. Specifically (and you'll probably only learn this when/if you start taking upper level math or computer science or logic courses in university), the math you use rests on a set of explicit, abstract assumptions. This set of assumptions creates a logical system. The truth of a statement in that system can be known, because the set of assumptions define what is true in that system.

The other three statements are different. They are statements about the natural world. People discern the truth about the natural world differently than they discern the truth of abstract systems. People discern the truth about the natural world by noticing patterns in it, then devising abstract systems that explain the patterns. As people notice more and more exceptions to the patterns, they devise more complicated, or different, abstract systems to explain the natural patterns.

The knowlege in your chemistry example, your physics example, and your genetics example, was developed in this way. The knowlege in these examples may or may not be refutable. If they are true, the evidence to refute them will not surface. If they are generally but not totally true, eventually some exceptions will be noticed, and those exceptions will necessitate a change in the claims that you are calling "irrefutable truth".

Here is an example from the past, in the area of genetics: People noticed that children looked like their parents. Thus they devised the idea that children inherited some essence from each of their parents, and that the essences mushed together in the child.

This idea predicted that, if you breed two pea plants, one with red flowers and one with white flowers, all the child plants will have pink flowers (mushing of essences). Well, a monk named Mendel tried this, with lots of pea plants. He noticed that, using lots and lots of plants, the children of a red and a white plant weren't always pink. About half were pink, but about 1/4 were red, and about 1/4 were white. From this, and from similar experiments, Mendel devised the theory of genetics which holds that we inherit particulate information from our parents, and not just essences that get mashed together.

That is a simple example. If you investigate the history of chemistry, physics, or biology, you will find other examples that demonstrate how the discovery of truth works in science. By understanding that, you will see how things held as scientific fact can sometimes be refuted, and you can understand how scientific facts, even in fields like physics and chemistry, are discovered.

With this background, you can begin to understand why evolution is considered scientific fact on par with the facts you mention from genetics, chemistry, etc. The short answer is that it is a formal system which explains a whole lot of evidence, like Mendel's system explains a lot of evidence, and like the structure of water consisting of two H atoms and 1 O atom explains a lot of evidence, etc.

---

If you want to learn more about these subjects, read more about "the history of science", "epistemology" (this is the philosophy of knowledge, truth, and belief), and "the philosophy of science" (major scholars in the philosophy of science include Karl Popper and Thoman Kuhn). If you want to learn more about evolution in particular, I'd suggest Richard Dawkins' book _The Blind Watchmaker_.

Answer 2

And religion is not truth. You've just said that Evolution is not true because you believe there is no proof. You then argue that there is a God and it is the Christian God because the Bible says so. The Bible, of course, being more valid than Darwin?

Applying your razor sharp analysis of Evolution to religion simply "proves" that Christianity is wrong. Are you truly so dense that you cannot realize that your argument works on either?

And where, pray tell, is your "evidence" of the Christian creation myth?




An addendum in response to your additional comments: Evolution is not at all "faith based". It is, as all scientific theories, evidence based. The idea is that you take the evidence and develop a theory that is a result of the evidence. Religion, on the other hand, asks that you accept a story for which no evidence has been proffered, and then search for things that might prop up the mythology. It is a radically different approach.

Also: I must apologize for calling you dense. I've had to view some rather disturbing victim photos recently, and I have not been quite myself.



A final addendum: where did you get the idea that Evolution was faith based, or that it lacked evidence? The central problem appears to be that you don't understand what a scientific theory is and how it is different from religion. Evolution never has been and never will be a "religion": it is a scientific theory...

Answer 3

Before I would move on, evolution is a theory. It can be proven or disproven at any time...but so far most of the scientific evidence points to there being at least some form of evolution in almost all species that ever existed.

Look here sonny...I believe in God and I believe in the Savior just as much as any true Christian. But I am not stupid enough to believe that everything in the Bible is literal. Why? Because for me a literalist interpretation is twisting the true meaning of the Bible. It is not a science book...it is a book of faith. The details of the creation of the world never really mattered to God because they did not affect His divine plan of salvation. And besides, He did not dictate to the writers what to exactly write (word for word) (and the writers of that time were stupid because their sciences were primitive).

But knowing literalists like you...you'll probably never be convinced. You think you already have the truth and you will not accept it any other way...
There is only one way )for me anyways) to settle this stupid debate:
The moment we have a time machine...I'll send you and an Evolutionist (for cross-checking) back 4 million years, and if and when BOTH of you come back then you tell us what really happened and we can all put this stupidity behind us.

Answer 4

Science is based on refutable theorys not fact. A fact is just a widely accepted theory: such as the theory of gravity, care to argue that the theory of gravity is false? The theory of gravity is commonly accepted as true, so it becomes a fact. For a long time it was a fact that the world was flat but that theory was proven wrong.

The theory of evolution has been proven false countless times and it has been re written to suit the criticisim. Though it will never be a fact they still present it as one.

The creation story as presented in the Bible requires faith and therefore cannot be proven and cannot be a fact, Though it may be true.


I get the feeling that I'm preaching to the choir with this.

Answer 5

No, science is not irrefutable truth. Just because we don't know if something is 100% true or not doesn't mean it's not science. Einstein's general *theory* of relativity is a huge part of science even though it is only a theory.

Science:
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

"Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions."

Can the "god did it" theory be tested by the scientific method? No. This is why it is only a theory and not a scientific theory. This is why it has no place in the science classroom. "God did it" is just another way of saying "I don't know".

Answer 6

Actually evolution is science. Evolution follows the scientific method while creationism does not. Science changes as we learn more to make our theories more accurate. It begins with observation, then moves on to hypothesis, testing and debate. Creationism is very rigid. It begins with works of fiction, then proceeds to asserting, insisting, twisting the facts, and torturing those who don't believe it. Creationism is not science. As for proof of evolution? You obviously have not read about the Miller Urey experiment have you?

Answer 7

Religion and god are not irrefutable either, very little is. We all need to chill a bit, we can't prove anything about religion we should just respect each others beliefs and right to believe those things. Just agree to disagree and stop with all the anger,all this stress will shorten ur life span!

Answer 8

Evolution is a theory, a scientific theory...All it states is that all living things have the ability to adapt to their environment, and that if the adaptation prooves to be beneficial that it gets passed down through their D.N.A. to their offspring, hopefully increasing the chance of species survival...This doesn't disproove the existence of a God... It makes sense to create something that can adapt in order to survive, otherwise you'd be down here re-creating what you've already created, over and over and over again...What a waste of time. Just Guessing,
See Ya 'round

Answer 9

More science "facts"

one time science was 100% certain that the Earth was flat and if you sailed to far you would fall off.

the sun revolved around the Earth - what was in fact the center of the universe.

if you put poseys in your pockets it protected you from the plague

scientific fact that witches do not bleed, floated and couldn't be burned.

there are more, but I think that is enough

Answer 10

here's what i think, and it makes perfect sense to me (because it's my theory); evolution IS creationism. 1 + 1 = 2 and a line of apes split off to evolve into man. i don't think there was any one adam or eve, and i know that no one knows for sure what happened. it just comes down to what you believe.