2006-09-12 10:13:00 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It is more or less impossible to "prove" a scientific theory. Unless we are certain that all possible scenarios that could disprove the theory have been tested, it is not techically proven. However, what makes a theory like evolution viable is that it is refutable, meaning its concepts can be scientifically tested. To date, the theory of evolution has been tested and not yet disproved, which means until something comes along to disprove it, it is accepted as scientifcally valid.
Religion, (or creationism, more specifically), on the other hand, is entirely irrefutable. It does not lend itself to be proven or disproven. It comes with no scientifc evidence, yea or nea. As such, it is neither a theory or a hypothesis. It's just a story.
2006-09-12 10:33:38 · answer #1 · answered by Mark M 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Scientific theory = Tested and tested and tested some more. Seems to be pretty consistent with how the world actually works. Examples: Gravity, plate tectonics, biological evolution.
Theory as non-scientists often use it: A hunch, possibly unsubstantiated. Closer to a scientific hypothesis.
2006-09-12 10:20:54 · answer #2 · answered by The Lurkdragon 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Scientists don't exactly use faith. We collect a ton of evidence and make our best guess. We came up with the gravity theory because we noticed that heavy things fall. We have found a ton of fossils and noticed differences between the species, and similarities between different species, so we looked for a natural explanation. There is more evidence, but evolutionary biology is not my specialty.
Quick, simply-curious, question for you. What is your proof of Christianity? Besides eyewitness accounts from hundreds of years ago. In court cases, eyewitness accounts are scrutinized very carefully.
2006-09-12 10:20:31 · answer #3 · answered by Amy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why must things be "scientifically" proven before we believe they exist? And what exactly does that term mean?
Gravity does not exist because you cannot touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it, or see it -- you can observe its effects but you cannot see "gravity".
And the list goes on and on of forces that science insists exist, but cannot show anything but the effects.
So the real issue is whether or not knowledge and the reality of things can be "known" in any other way than empirically.
What Science really puts their faith in is the assumptions upon which "Science" is based in the first place; one of which is that man can "know" anything!
2006-09-12 10:23:01 · answer #4 · answered by MrDan 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually, evolution has been proven. Faith is the blind allegiance to unproven dogma. No one follows science blindly, without questioning it. If we did, then we would still beleive that the earth is the center of the universe.
2006-09-12 10:18:23 · answer #5 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We've got the fossils, yes we do,
We've got the fossils, how 'bout you?
Right, not scientifically proven, but there's plenty of evidence lying around for it. It's the best explanation for the observations.
2006-09-12 10:24:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. How do they know they were not there? God was there and He says otherwise. I'll stick to believing what God said in Genesis of The Holy Bible.
2006-09-12 10:19:19 · answer #7 · answered by LARRY S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like gravity? Its not sure how it works but hey we stick to the earth pretty well.
2006-09-12 10:14:37 · answer #8 · answered by Rob 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No: they're drawing logical inferences from empirical data.
2006-09-12 10:15:11 · answer #9 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oy vey.
2006-09-12 10:17:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋