I would like to know why it is that scientists' thoughts about creation and the existince of man kind?

Question

are always hypotheses or theories but never an absolute. Even a scientific law is perfectly comparable to a theory yet scientists stand so firm mocking christians beliefs of creation, but the bible and its teachings have not once yet been disproven through numerous centuries of ridicule and harsh scrutiny.

The bible has been around for centuries and yet it lives on just as the word of God says.

wow u people are ignorant

I am not saying in any way that it is just a guess i am wondering why that it is not described as something that is irrefutably real and that is perfectly absolute. Believe me i dont want to start a debate i just want a clear answer,
so calm down people.

Answer 1

Science states that we do not have to disprove a statement. The person making the statement has to show proof. No religious sect has been able to provide ANY proof that holds up to even the basic scientific scrutiny.

Or with your logic:

Prove to me the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. You can't. Therefore the FSM church is correct.

Answer 2

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

That's how science works. Gravity theory is a scientific theory; it doesn't mean it's not true or that anybody sane doubts it. Perhaps some of the details are inaccurate, but not the overall theory.

Some scientists are christians - you don't have to be an atheist to understand science.

The earth is not flat (circles are flat, sorry) - that's just a random example of the fallacies of the bible.

Other religious texts are older - by your reasoning (another logical fallacy) they're true too.

Answer 3

It's a language problem. Theists have no empirical basis for their beliefs, so they must emotionally affirm them, referring to them as absolutes. Followers of the scientific method regard this as arrogance, since what we don't know now can affect the accuracy of an explanation. So they speak of "hypotheses" (untested explanations) and "theories" (tested explanations). They resist the term "law" to avoid the idea that some sort of legislative action is involved and because no honest scientist can claim that a theory will never be superceded by a better one. If scientific terminology sounds tentative to you, it's because they are realists, ready to reject what they accept in the light of newer, stronger information. Religionists can't afford to look uncertain because they have nothing physical to back them up.

The evolutionist take on life is that chemicals that spontaneously form due to the nature of the universe, at some point reached a complexity that induced them to extract, transfer, segregate, combine and replicate certain molecules into even more complex structures. If a change enhanced the duration of a structure, it was more likely to continue enhancing and replicating itself. In time, unrelated structures whose metabolic byproducts enhanced each others' survivability developed a symbiotic relationship, becoming one organic unit, the cell.

Eventually single cells began to work cooperatively and eventually began to diversify into specific functions, forming organisms. Each time a mutation created a survival advantage, it tended to survive better than the ones that didn't. Energy processors, circulatory systems, toxin removers, sensory systems, memory, self awareness and abstract thought all slowly evolved to the point that man had some ability to manipulate his environment, enhancing his survival.

Mental functions seem to be in a different, "meta" class than physical functions, so some people (not all) naturally considered that they were something special, beings capable of dealing with their world rather than merely being a part of it. There is evidence of awareness, emotion, memory and even calculation in lower animals, yet the superiority of human consciousness has always seemed inarguable. Humans just have something extra.

But what is it? Since the Enlightenment began, philosophers have asked how the mind and the body are related. They searched for a seat of consciousness, a cell or organ where all thought and sensation came together and where decisions were made. Perhaps it was not literally the "mind" or "soul" but it was the connection point between the material and the spiritual. (They briefly thought they'd found it in the pineal gland,but they were wrong.) They found no special part of the body that affected a person's ability to think and feel. Consciousness resided in no specific spot.

Computer science has enabled us to develop analogous structures to the human brain, even artifical intelligence programs that uncannily mimic human consciousness. No independent thought, so far, but should that happen, we likely still couldn't point to the specific logic gate or register that called the shots. That draws into question the idea that we exist independent from our bodies. After all, if the true "us" is spirit, just how do we communicate with our material bodies, sensing and manipulating through-- what?

Your claim that "the bible and its teachings have not once yet been disproven" requires some interpretation. The existence of the Bible is factual. Its contents are in various levels of dispute. Its "teachings" work for some communities, not for others. There are a number of scientific issues with which it does not deal well, on at least a literal level. (For one, the idea that the Sun revolves around the Earth is very hard to defend.) Certainly there is always an "interpretation" that can get around a problem but that "interpretation" never exists until it is necessary.

The Biblical creation account is a supernatural explanation. It is outside the natural behavior of the universe. Certainly an omnipotent being could make the universe any way it wanted, but the method described in the Bible matches no conceivable natural process. One might wonder why the universe had to be constructed by breaking its own rules, or one could simply recognize that the Biblical creation story was written to convey a sense of orderliness, in a metaphor that the writer's contemporaries could understand. There is nothing to "prove" because the creation story was never intended to be taken literally.

Science doesn't have all the answers, but it continues to find ways to get more and better answers. Religion can only claim to have all answers, but no way to improve them should they come to be discredited.

Answer 4

"I would like to know why it is that scientists' thoughts about creation and the existince of man kind are always hypotheses or theories but never an absolute." - Are you sure you want to know?

Scientists deal with observations. Hypotheses come from those observations and after much testing, theories come from those hypotheses. They do not deal with absolutes because they know that it is always possible that evidence may come along some day and make a revision or rejection of a theory necessary.

They do not rely upon the teachings of an ancient book to give them absolutes, especially when that ancient book has as many mistakes as the Bible does.
.

Answer 5

"but the bible and its teachings have not once yet been disproven through numerous centuries of ridicule and harsh scrutiny"

See now, that's just a lie, and it demonstrates how religions manage to claim that they have "eternal truths".

Scientists, on the other hand, are honest enough to change their minds when the evidence refutes their pet theories, and more importantly, even when individual scientists are unwilling to do that, the process of science overall results in change in response to new evidence.

You have made a mistake when you decided to value sticking by your guns more than believing what is true. Truth matters, no matter what your religion says.

Answer 6

uh, last I checked the Bible wasn't an "absolute" either. And there are MANY Christian scientists out there.

If we're so ignorant, by all means, rebut with some "absolute" proof!

Yes, JD, the Bible is a real DOCUMENT that was written. But so was Homer's "Odyssey", which was written 5 centuries before the Old Testament. Does that mean the Greek Gods mentioned in that epic were real? Who knows, I certainly don't know "absolutely" whether they existed and no one else does, either. Kinda like creation, NO ONE KNOWS for sure beyond a shadow of a doubt how the universe was created.

Answer 7

That is a faulty generalization. Not all scientists do that. Some scientists are Christians.

As for the other statement, depends on what you mean by "disproven". My studies indicate there are lots of contradictions and mistakes in it, but I have no desire to be harsh about it, or to attempt to ridicule it or any of it's adherents. I know my saying that will likely make some people mad. Sorry!

Answer 8

A scientific theory is something which has so far stood up to all the predictions it has made, for which there is evidence and for which no contradictory evidence has yet been found. All scientific laws are based on theories. The word "theory" in the context of science does not mean a guess.

Answer 9

You clearly do not understand how science works.

How science works and explains things (roughly): In science, one observes something. One documents the event. One speculates what causes said event. One experiments as cleanly as possible, creating a control and measuring the results. The hypothesis is either supported or not supported. Conclusions are drawn from the documented evidence provided by the experiment. If the results are deemed repeatable through peer review then one can assume the behavior is consistent within the discipline.

How fundamentalists explain things: God did it because this book says so.

Answer 10

Scientists are individuals with a great deal of education and an inquiring mind as well. It is hard to believe in the creation theory because it is so full of mysticism and fantasy. We would rather believe in the theories of Darwin since they offer more concrete ideas and less mysticism.