Do scientists always interpret facts in the light of theory?

Question

such as revision to evolution and the big bang

Answer 1

As new facts come to light a theory or model may have to be changed to accomodate the new information. The new theory or model is then tested to see if it still fits all existing known facts.

The mere fact that evolution is one of the longest standing scientific theories says a lot for the strength and sound basis of the original concept. Many have attempted to disprove it but have all failed. More than just about any other theory, evolution has withstood scientific and theological scrutiny and remained largely intact. In fact new evidence that was unknown in Darwin's time, such as comes from genetics and DNA, only serves to strengthen the theory of evolution and demonstrate that it also occurs even at a molecular level that Darwin could scarcely have imagined.

Answer 2

A scientist RARELY approaches data with the intent to prove or disprove a particular theory. The scientists merely makes his/her observation and then figures out some principle that will "explain" why those observations occur. As new data comes in, some of which does NOT agree with that principle then, the scientists must either revise the principle to accomodate and include the new data, OR scrap the original principle and derive an entirely NEW One. Most of the time the original principle simply needs revision. The EXCEPTION to this rule is this: When the original principle (Called a theory by most laypersons) is first published in a peer reviwed journal, other scientists purposely search for NEW data to TEST that principle to actualy FIND data points that will NOT be covered by the principle.

Until recently there were very few "Laws" in Science, one of those was the "Law" of Gravity. In laymen's terms it was worded as, "Whatever goes UP must come down" but: with developments in the early 20th century it was discovered that the "Law" as Newton proposed it was in fact WRONG and it's incorrectness was demonstrated by the launching of spacecraft that have been launched into space with a high enough velocity that they will NEVER fall back to the Earth. Pioneer !0 and 11 have enough speed to not only reach the escape velocity of our planet and our sun but ALSO have enough velocity to escape the entire galaxy AND, given enough time, to EVEN escape the universe itself. Where it will go from there is ANYBODY'S guess. WE just don't know, there is NO data on that whatsoever. So, as you can SEE there are NO absol;utes in the area of Science and THAT is why Religious interpreters SEE science as being a "false religion". Science is NOT the thing at fault. Science is ONLY as perfect as the amount and quality of the data that is and can be gathered. The more complete the data the more likely that the discovered principles will be correct. Religion on the other hand has NO such possibility built into itself for revision. One cannot independently OBSERVE a Creator creating life, a universe or performing "miracles". That information is NOT subject to the Scientific methods of observation and deriving of principles and "negative" experimentation to force revisions. The argument between Religion and Science is TOTALLY based on that. Evolution has been derived from observation, experimentation, and gathering of Data. Creationism, by it's VERY definition cannot. Creationism is NOT the same as Science in that the "Theory" was made in the FIRST place and THEN data collected to "Prove" those assertions. Science on the other hand acquired the data FIRST and then came up with possible explanations that try to explain WHY those observations occur. Science is flexible enough to accomodate revision, Religion is NOT.

Raji the Green Witch

Answer 3

For a long time, there were disteleogists (such as Richard Dawkins) who were gleefully proclaiming that the non-functionality of "junk DNA" as argument for the Fairy Tale of Evolution, partly because they allege that an Intelligent Designer wouldn't have included sub-optimal features in its creations. Now that there's evidence that "junk DNA" does have functionality, guess what? That too is evidence for the Fairy Tale of Evolution. They make pretty much the same argument for the so-called vestigial organs and other examples of what they claim to be "bad design", but then turn around and try to argue that if humans seem especially adapted to do something well (like run long distances, which would be an example of "good design"... oops, I mean "optimal evolution" or "selective advantage"), then that's evidence for the Fairy Tale of Evolution also.

Answer 4

No, it's based on empirical observation.

And if you study what the observations are that lead to the "big bang theory" you can see that it has changed enormously over the decades as the ability to collect data has improved. But again it is recognized as nothing more than a model and it is a model based on what can be observed cosmologically as well as mathematically. Also, any physicist worth his salt will also tell you that the word "big bang" is a silly description because the only language that can convey it (scientifically) is math.

I think if you compared the actual details of the big bang model to the story of creation, you'd find AMAZING similarities.

But most importantly, science is nothing more than an observation of what and it is also something that changes significantly over time. Understand that the quantum theory replaced Newtonian Physics only about 50 years ago.

Science is not intended to describe "why." It's only a means of describing an observation.

Answer 5

I think that most scientists are more in tune with the numerology side of the GOD thing. It's a right brain left brain thing. Left brain or logical as opposed to right hemispere or emotion. Yod He Va He [YHVH] in Kabbalistic interpritation, which is the creator father, mother, son ,daughter. interpreted names. Yaway, Jehova,Yeshua, Joshua, Jesus.
Father the creator [Logistics, Mathimatics, Numerology] etc.etc. there is a mathimatical equasion to all things that are, that is the Yod.
Mother the creator [the visual beauty, Harmony with sounds smells tastes.] etc. She is the decorator of the reality that we know and the first He of the name. No disrespect to any gender insinuations...
So scientist are just strongly left hemisphere oriented. Some are very spiritual. Like Albert Einstein for instance. To read some of his thoughts on spirituality and religion visit "spaceandmotion.com" He claims a Pantheist veiw of GOD but a very spiritual man.
Well you did ask. Pleasant Journey and GOD Bless.

Answer 6

No. Some observations are simply recorded until sufficient information and understanding become available to create and test a theoretical framework.

Answer 7

Yes they do. We all do. I believe - therefore an interpretation of the evidence must back it up. Unfortunately they are teaching their interpretation of evidence in our universities as just that, fact. How can it be a fact if tomorrow it isn't?

Answer 8

On the contrary, they adjust the theory in light of the facts.

Answer 9

No faith is needed for evolution, basically an information of the data - yet bear in mind that our information of evolution has stepped forward significantly for the reason that Darwin's time, and a few of what he theory has been 'corrected'. @Mitzy: I wager you haven't any longer examine any of the aspects that the 'mined rates' you have provided are taken from have you ever? no longer between the scientists that the intentionally chosen PARTIAL rates you grant grew to become into speaking against evolution interior the articles/books the "rates" have been taken from - at maximum all they have been announcing grew to become into that the evolutionary "tree of existence" is possibly to be slightly extra complicated that interior the previous theory. i assume that lies and misrepresentation are considered as suited by using JW's as they're by using different creationists.

Answer 10

A true scientist makes great effort to avoid it. That's why there's an emphasis on the scientific method.

Wish non-scientists were as scrupulous in their thinking.