Do you understand science?

Question

Okay that was vague.

What I mean is, do you bash the Bible, not really knowing what you represent? Do you know about evolution, abiogenesis, big bang theory, etc. Or all these just catchphrases you use to not sound ignorant.

Well this is the chance to prove yourself, not that you need to, but I feel like I don't truly know as much about science as I should to hold it to be true.

Anyway what I'm asking is, if there is one thing you would want everyone to know about science (in relation to R&S) what would you say.

Answer 1

Yes, I understand science.

Yes, I do bash the Bible, but I've read it. I understand what it represents.

What I would want people to know about science is its method. People too often misrepresent science and use its terms in wrong ways. For example, in science, the word "theory" does not mean "conjecture". It has a more rigorous definition than that.

Answer 2

While I am Christian, I believe that pretty much all LOGICAL scientific theories are true. Such as evolution, Big Bang, etc.

And no, they aren't useless catchphrases. Scientists of all, and some of no, religions work on these theories as applicable explanations of phenomena.

I don't know why scientists and religious people are always fighting over this. Religion and faith are, by definition, a belief in something when the facts point otherwise. Science finds the facts, and they point towards evolution and the Big Bang. You can believe whatever you want to, but the facts pretty much all point towards current science.


EXCELLENT
EXCELLENT
EXCELLENT answer, Steve N!

An amazing way to think of it. Same exact thoughts I hold. There's no need for religion and science to clash, because the Bible isn't literal - it has symbolic meaning.

Answer 3

I don't think that someone is 'bashing the bible' merely because they support these scientific theories. Many Christians support and believe in these theories.


One thing I want everyone to know is Hubble's Law:

Hubbles's Law

Hubble, who had been the first to establish that the universe included many other galaxies outside of our own, noticed something else: the galaxies were receding from us at a velocity proportional to their distance. The more distant the galaxy, the greater its redshift, and therefore the higher the velocity, a relation known as Hubble's Law.


The velocity v could be determined by multiplying the distance R by H, the Hubble constant, given by the slope of the line in the above graph, in units of kilometers per second per million light years. The Hubble constant describes the universe's rate of expansion.

The apparent linearity of Hubble's Law implies that the universe is uniformly expanding. What does that actually mean?

For one thing, it means that no matter which galaxy we happen to be in, virtually all of the other galaxies are moving away from us (the exceptions are at the local level: gravitational attraction pulls neighboring galaxies, such as Andromeda and the Milky Way, closer together). In other words, it's not as though we here on earth are at the center of the universe and everything else is receding from us. The universe has no "edge" as such.

Answer 4

I've never bashed the Bible. I just don't think it does a good job of explaining the nature of reality.

I spent four years studying biology in order to get my degree. I don't see how I could condense four years of study into a single answer.

(I never studied astronomy so I don't know much about the Big Bang, and I don't have the math to unravel it. Here's an abbreviated rendition:
http://www.main.com/~anns/other/humor/nerd.html )

This is what I want to say:
Science is not about the existence of God or the inerrancy of the Bible. It's about explaining natural phenomena, and it does it a lot better than the Bible, since scientists go out and look at what's out there (e.g. Darwin in the Galapagos and Wallace in the Malay Archipelago) and are open to novel ideas (e.g. Gould and Eldridge's punctuated equilibrium). They also test their ideas, and many explanations have fallen by the wayside as evidence arises to disprove them. Although the scientific method as practiced is by no means perfect, it works.
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/GalapagosWWW/Darwin.html
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
http://www.chemlife.umd.edu/emeritus/reveal/pbio/darwin/darwindex.html
http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/
http://www.wku.edu/%7Esmithch/index1.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/HowScien.pdf
http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/dispelling-myth-magical-science.htm

Intellectual honesty requires that you examine all sides of an issue and evaluate the evidence for and against. I haven't seen that among creationists.

Answer 5

Very few of them realise technological know-how. The big majority see technological know-how as a few devious approach atheists use to disprove their religion. @ Metal equipment: Ohhh sh!t.... @ Dr_ Lightning: You did not deliver up the FACT that clinical findings (experiment outcome) are below scrutiny from the clinical neighborhood from day a million. A speculation can't be established as soon as to end up, or disprove, it. It need to be established mostly, criticized relentlessly and driven to its limits by way of a number of special study groups earlier than a declare may also be deemed "credible". Of direction we do not recognise the whole lot, and we all know that none folks will ever recognise the whole lot in our lifetimes, however it's not approximately "figuring out the whole lot" - it is approximately discovery and the travel those clinical exploits take us as a civilization. That is why I will on no account realise fundie's: should you declare each reply ends with "god", then why trouble with any of this sh!t? @ Publius: The Miller-Urey experiments did try to recreate primordial stipulations on a small scale. Initially they concept the experiments proved that the abiogensis speculation used to be fake, however then years later it used to be determined that their experiments truthfully produced amino acids (constructing blocks of DNA) that, unluckily on the time, might no longer be detected. Then the speculation went again at the desk. It wasn't established precise, however it did open the clinical neighborhood as much as dialogue.

Answer 6

The Big Bang theory is not trying to prove or disprove a god or creator. It simply explains that the entire universe was once condensed in a giant massive ball, and then exploded. As it exploded, the temperature cooled and particles were formed, then stars, then galaxies, and eventually our planet. It wouldn't try to explain anything beyond that because we don't have enough evidence to back any hypothesis on those things up.

Answer 7

I think I have a pretty good understanding of science. I at least know enough to never use the "it's just a theory" argument, and I know enough to not ask why we don't see the light from the Big Bang (people actually ask this!!).

Answer 8

When you correctly translate the Bible from Hebrew to the language of science is is in perfect agreement with modern scientific theory.
Let there be light = Big Band
Darkness was upon the face of the deep is a description of the singularity thar existed befor the Big Bang.
Let the earth bring forth the creature of the sea = evolution.

Answer 9

I understand science pretty well, I have a degree in it. I am not terribly impressed with it either, sure science explains a lot of things but I can't make a religion of it like some people do. But I am not on the side of the Bible either, call me a free agent...

Answer 10

Science begins by skepticism. Each hypothesis proposed must be supported by evidence for it to be become a sound scientific theory. No proof means no conclusion. Science has no opinion on religion, except that if religions wants to be acknowledged as scientifically true, then it must present evidence also.