Christians, do ANY of you understand what the meaning of science is?

Question

Here is the definition of Science in simple language;

"An organized method for discovering how the world works, by observation, experimentation, and analysis of results – independently of any biases, needs, or prejudices that might color or alter the conclusions – followed by competent, independent, replication of the findings. Those findings must be subject to rigorous attempts at falsification, and adjusted to more accurately reflect the reality, if and when necessary… Or reversed…!"

Did you understand any of that? It means that you start with a hypothesis and THEN observe the outcome in order to reach a conclusion.
NOT, and this is how "creation science" works, by working backwards from the conclusion, and ignoring or changing any observations that detract from that conclusion.

(note that "creation science" is in quotes. That's because it is an oxymoron. Look it up)
This question arose because so many of you CLEARLY don't understand what science is all about.

no1home,
now I know why you picked that name. The lights are on, but clearly, no one is home.
you have my pity, you really do.

Answer 1

thanks Bill Nye The Science Guy!

Answer 2

Firstly, there is no need to make a rude little troll out of one's self when asking or answering a question.
Secondly, your description of science seems to fit, I assume you copied it from somewhere else.
Third, your description of "creation science" is rediculous, did you make it up on your own???
Fourth "This question arose because so many of you CLEARLY don't understand what science is all about." You have been here for a rather short time, and most of your answers that I've seen have been incredibly rude and short sighted. Just because you are unhappy doesn't mean that others answers aren't reasonable, or that the others using Y!A don't understand science as well as, or better than you.
Fifth, answers like the one you give here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AibSyJiJMe7i6jDmsQOuJjHty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070917100806AAffbRW&show=7#profile-info-qv0eftLWaa in no way show you to be a student of science. When someone makes a radical claim like that, it sometimes is good to have Some supportive proof.
Sixth, will look forward to you growing up, you seem able to spell, which is always nice on Y!A. If you don't then I guess I will see you when you no doubt come back to Y!A under a new name after having been kicked off.

Answer 3

Two clarifying points: 1. Christian Scientists make an important distinction between "mind" and "Mind"... the former indicating human mind, subject to confusion... and the latter indicating an all-knowing and all-loving God. It's Mind, or God, that heals. 2. The following statement from Alfred Farlow, a colleague of Mary Baker Eddy's, may help to clarify things: "The statement, "there is no matter," standing alone and independent of any qualification, seems to mean that everything that we see,---the entire creation,--is non-existent, while in truth Christan Science teaches that all things, from the least to the greatest, are real, though not what they seem to the peculiar sense of those who have not yet learned to perceive them as God made them and as they really are. When we are correctly informed as to what God's creation is we can understand what it is not. We are unable to make the proper distinction between truth and error until we first understand truth."

Answer 4

Do you mean Christians like Roger Bacon, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton and Sir Robert Boyd? Or did you mean some of the living scientist who are also religious ... some even Christian.

I, myself, am a Christian (but not a scientist) who accepts Plato and Aristotle's cosmological argument - that there must be an intelligent mechanism to have caused the universe.

And that it began as a gravitational singularity about 13.7 billion years ago.

Answer 5

That is funny, because you addressed Christians when you might consider addressing it to Atheists, who have no proof but believe it anyway.

"An organized method for discovering how the world works, by observation, experimentation, and analysis of results – independently of any biases, needs, or prejudices that might color or alter the conclusions – followed by competent, independent, replication of the findings."

Answer 6

And neither did Charles Darwin.

He had the crazy notion that the cell was the smallest part of a living body, filled with a fluid he called an "ambiotic fluid".

He based his entire theory of evolution on his mistakes!

Please don't tell me you actually BELIEVE Darwin!

Or perhaps you've never heard of mitochondria, protein and protein synthesis, RNA, DNA, the method of cell replication, the method by which raw materials are converted to usable energy within the mitochondria, the double-stranded helix, etc, etc, etc.

(It would do you well to actually study some of this before you draw the wrong conclusion as Darwin did. It's called "science"!)

Darwin formulated his theory on faulty information, and as ANY logician will tell you, if the premise is wrong, then your conclusion will, likewise, be wrong.

Now then, in the words of Sherlock Holmes, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Now that we've eliminated evolution as something impossible (being both unscientific as well as illogical), then what remains, however improbable, must be the truth, and that truth is that God was the originator and creator of Life in this universe!

Answer 7

yes, I understand, but I also have seen many other definitions. science is essentially "the pursuit of knowledge concerning the physical world" by one definition, and breaks into "theoretical" and "emperical" knowledge.

by your own definition, you've also disqualified macro-evolution and the theory of the Big Bang as valid under the field of science, as they were both hypotheses which fall short:

the end result of the Big Bang: matter. correct? well the theory is how it all began. so how did it begin? well you'd have to try and trace it all back wouldn't you. oh but wait... would that not be supposing what happened without the ability to repeat, predict or even observe thereby not being able to test the theory? the conclusion is that the Big Bang formed what we know of as the universe. is this thena special case? must we tweak the rules?

Answer 8

That is not how science is used in R&S. Science in R&S can be defined as: A cafeteria of findings that can be put together in any order or bias in order to ridicule, mock and entertain oneself at the expense of anyones spiritual belief that opposes ones life style or lack of belief.

Science itself is a wonderful thing. So is a baseball bat. Both are useful when used for what they were intended for.

Answer 9

You cannot replicate the creation of the Heavens and the Earth in a lab.

You really need to read your own definition.

Fortunately we don't have to replicate it since God tells us that He made it all for His own glory.

Pastor Art

Answer 10

Fascinating how so many folk are invested in believing in magic! There is just no way that their magical beliefs aren't fact.

Answer 11

I am a scientist...and I wish I could say that scientists always follow this method..

in the case of evolution, they haven't

they started out first with an opinion...and then formed the "evidence" out of dubious pieces of scrap bones that did not match each other.

if scientists were as conscientious as they should be...you would not be hearing about all the dangerous drug recalls that they originally had approved that were found to kill people.