reasearch, or is it just a group of people who put their fingers in their ear and go "lalalalalalalalala" and the Scientific Community is having a rational conversation.
2007-07-17 15:06:55 · 14 answers · asked by ? 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Is the scientific community "rational" ? Is it rational to accept as "irrefutably proven" , ideas that are subsequently proved to be wrong by the next generation of scientist ?
The latest example being the part of the Big Bang theory that had the acceleration of the expansion of the universe slowing down since the B.B. Accepted as fact, as science "proved" it to be true with "scientific tests". Turns out it's now been "proven" that the acceleration of the universe is increasing, sped along by (proven to exist in theory) dark matter. Dark matter being the mysterious entity that scientists had to discover so that all of their other astronomical calculations made sense, there being no room for "God" in their equations.
I'm sure there was lots of "lalalalalalalalala"-ing by scientists when this latest hypothesis was proposed. Maybe even now.
Is it rational to base your beliefs on a process that prides itself on continuously being found wrong ? Exactly when can we draw a line in the sand and say "Science, as we know it, is now irrefutably correct" ? Not anytime soon, I'll wager.
Required disclaimer: no I am not implying that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, only that science isn't always necessarily correct, just because it passes it's OWN validity tests.
2007-07-17 16:49:45 · answer #1 · answered by =42 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I suspect that the Scientific Community has to waste more time competing against Creationism.
When the scientific community doesn't score a complete victory, then the result is confusion for many people.
2007-07-17 15:17:22 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Bad Day 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they cause scientists to waste their valuable time doing what must feel like teaching kindergarten to them.
Most scientists spend little or no time trying to explain their work to the public. There are science reporters for that. When a "big name" takes the time to explain something, it is because their funding depends on it. Now here they are, wasting their time explaining why they should be taken seriously as science in comparison to a book written a few thousand years ago. It is pathetic.
2007-07-17 19:36:00 · answer #3 · answered by auntb93 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think both.
I think they actually help.
I mean, criticism and questioning of any kind can be helpful in science. And the part when they close their ears and go "lalalalallalalalaal" usually they don't do much harm (of course the country where i live in does not have a creation museum, so my view might be different from yours)
Paz de Cristo
2007-07-17 15:24:23 · answer #4 · answered by Emiliano M. 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think there would be a special focus on evolution of humans regardless of creationist objections. by a remarkable coincidence, all scientists are human so tend to be interested in human origins more than the origins of say, lobsters. science doesn't need religiously motivated skepticism - there's already plenty of scientifically motivated skepticism about aspects of evolution that are actually genuinely controversial.
2007-07-17 15:15:07 · answer #5 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both. They lalalala an people search for more truth regarding evolution. no matter what science comes up with the creationists will just stand there going "Idonthearyouidonthearyouidonthearyou". They wont see the truth untill they die. Then they will see that they follow a book of hatred.
2007-07-17 15:11:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The scientific community is being forced to confront creationists who continually lie about advances in science, or make up their own "science" to advance their own agenda. It is really a waste of time, but because the American public is lacking in science education and understanding, confrontation is necessary.
2007-07-17 15:12:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Evolution is not a science It’s a hypothesis that has never been proved.
We have still yet to see any evidence of one species becoming another. Variations in the same species doesn't equate to evolution. For all we know at this stage is that those variations are preprogrammed in the DNA as possible variations. Mixing of DNA may make a new type of dog, but it is still a dog. So, even if a complex single cell organism managed to spontaneously form with perfect parts one time or even a thousand times, it wouldn't account for the wonderful variety of life here on Earth.
Evolution claims, random change & natural selection make simple things spontaneously transform into more complex things without recourse to intelligent design. Chance and random changes simply do not produce higher levels of organization & complexity.
2007-07-17 15:12:15 · answer #8 · answered by Steve 4 · 8⤊ 3⤋
I guess they actually do help! They challenge the scientists to prove them wrong in a way, therefore urging them to prove the creationists wrong. I myself find this whole debate very petty. I don't really care how we humans got here. I find both theories very interesting, but does it really matter to us how we got here. Let's concentrate on trying to keep ourselves from not being blown up.
2007-07-17 15:29:28 · answer #9 · answered by YouCannotKnowUnlessUAsk 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
About once a decade, they ask a question that makes scientists think. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of writers trying to write leading questions to draw attention away from the facts.
2007-07-17 15:18:38 · answer #10 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋