Is it easier to get leading scientists to agree on something than it is to get all the Christians to?

Question

Really, you don't hear of scientists saying another is not a "true scientist".

Answer 1

Basically science is all about showing your work. If you can show your work, and your results, you might have some one or two people who don't get it and choose to disagree , but largely, once the evidence is in, it's not a debate, we call those facts.

Additionally, crackpot science is reviewed in what it called the "peer-review" process, so if someone comes out with some crazy idea, the best minds in the field of study will try to tear that idea to shreds in the crib, it's often a brutal form of review, and not for the faint of heart, but it does prevent most junk science from getting through and will keep most bad scientists from doing alot of professional work. Its not a perfect system - as the problems with Dr. Behe (of the Intelligent Design movement) revealed, but it's the best system we've developed so far, it's actually fairly brutal and MANY otherwise brilliant Ph.D students fail to pass their first peer reviews.

In the case of the religion, this is where religion and science part company, Christians and more specifically fundamentalist Christians, often profess their beliefs and say they "do or don't believe" X or Y, for thus and such reasoning.

Which is great, you can successfully live your life, have kids, earn a living and still BELIEVE that the Sun goes around the Earth or that the Earth is flat any number of other "wrong" things - which don't directly impact us. I just wouldn't ask that person to fly a spaceship to the moon or want them getting a job adjusting the orbit of a space-shuttle.

In the way of great pop culture debates, I similarly, could care less if a person doesn't want to believe in evolution - for instance. I say GREAT - Good for you, but it's on the test next week and you need to know that or it WILL be marked wrong.

It's not so much a matter of interfereing with someone's belief system, as it is a practical matter at that point.

So whether it's a question on a test, or a matter of life and death.

If you get a microbial infection, they don't use Penicillin anymore because the microbes have EVOLVED to be resistant , so you need a newer antibiotic, and it doesn't matter what you believe, if you get Penicillin instead of the newer medication , you will not get better.

And more concretely if there is a job available at ABC Genetics Inc., that's great for me, because I can reconcile my belief with my ability to do genetics whereas some flavor of Christian will self-exclude themselves because they don't believe in that crazy Darwin stuff.

As another - more clear example, I don't BELIEVE in the tennents of governance of the German-Austrian Nazi party or adhere to the leadership virtues of Nicolo Machiavelli, but I know what they were and I feel I understand them to my satisfaction. It's important because when people do not know how the Nazi party operated it means that a Nazi-like party could come to power again if people don't know what such a political movement might look like.

I think it's possible that everyone else should become somewhat upset at lazy people who just say they don't want to learn stuff because it's hard-to-grasp or their religious leadership has lead them into a dead-end tennent of faith....which can be shown as such - even with the primitive state of science as it is.

Answer 2

You wanna bet? I'll give you 1000 to 1 odds. Scientists disagree all the time on just about every scientific question because they see the evidence according to their own perspective and understanding.

Just watch a television news thing...like on Good Morning America. They have different scientists on there and one says that this is true...another says he is misinterpreting it. Sound familiar?

Even something as unworthy of coverage as the "Jesus tomb" thing a couple of months back brought out scientists from both sides of the court.

Answer 3

There is an extreme difference. A debate in the science world is BENEFICIAL. It are these objections and alternative views that lead to modification and help us find the true answer to natural laws.

A debate in the realm of religion is hardly the same. It can have very ugly results.

In the end though, scientists will generally end up agreeing on a subject after enough evidence has passed to prove one side correct - many times both views are partially correct. However, in religion there is no way of truely finding out the truth, so it is much harder to convince anyone to your viewpoint.

Answer 4

Luci,
YES, it is because the scientists read studies and do their own work to prove or disprove scientific theoretical works. They are very studious and a number of so-called Christians do not read, study, and opbey GOD's WORD as they are supposed to be doing. Have a wonderful week!
Thanks,
Eds


.

Answer 5

If you believe in science by "consensus", yes! But fanatical believers in the pseudo-science of Evolution - those who treat it more like a religion than like the *theory* it is, do, indeed condemn scientists who don't adhere to the "party line" of "proven" evolution or "proven" global warming and often "excommunicate" them, by saying that they are not "true" believers, er, scientists!

Answer 6

Some "Leading Scientists" often look out for their ego and noteriety first before they look out for the people.

Answer 7

It's easier to get congress to agree on something!

Answer 8

Sure, because scientists have very strict and very clear criteria, and they follow the evidence.

On the other hand, Chrstians often invent their own rules/criteria, and they all rely on the Bible, which is so ambiguous that it could be interpreted a million different ways.

Answer 9

US weekly Magazine reporters are not "Scientists".

Answer 10

Christians only have to agree on one thing. we all know that God is our Father and that Jesus Christ is our Savior. the little details dont matter as much as those two things.