question about evolution . . .?

Question

Scientific theory, in order to be accepted, does not have to be proven true . . . it does have to be incapable of being proven false . . . If you apply the same logic used in science to the Bible (or any other religion) . . . then you can only conclude that the Bible may or may not be true but can not be proven false and therefore is a valid scientific theory. Then the question becomes is creation a science/scientific theory or spiritual mandate? How would you apply the criteria for scientific theory to the Bible (if at all)?

Answer 1

Religion is not something you can test and is therefore not a science. Having faith means you believe something to be true despite the facts. Faith is great. But it is not science. You can't really test the hypothesis "there is a god" What controls would you do? What experiments would you do?

Science is not the study of "what's easier to believe" It's using experiments to gather the best possible data given the set of circumstances. To be true scientifically there must be scientific evidence.

Answer 2

Evolution is not a theory, it has been proven hundreds of times. Please refer to what you mean which is the evolution of the species. This theory is not proven but is taken from the best of knowledge currently available.

If I was to say that the bible was true because I couldn't prove it wrong would I also have to include Greek mythology, Roman Mythology, etc as I can't prove that Cerbos doesn't guard the gates the hades. Would I also have to say that I couldn't prove Harry Potter isn't a Wizard and that Hogwarts doesn't exist and so are also scientific theory?

The bible is a good story book which contains some historical references but so does a lot of Greek works and people don't believe in there gods any more.

For creation to be included as a scientific theory there must be some scientific proof of it. Since God has no proof about him there or Animals don't suddenly appear out of thin air this seems to fail on the scientific basis.

Answer 3

Excellant question.
The mistake made above is that most are not understanding the question, you are not comparing science w/ God. You are asking if the Biblical creation has scientific evidence and is otherwise scientifically unprovable. It does and it is.
I believe there is so much unexplainable anger on this issue that it intefers with logical thought processes, such as you have done a great job of trying to present.
Personally, I do not see the two, Bible and evolution, being mutually exclusive. The fact that evolution is a law of nature can be seen everywhere in our society. People have evolved into living different lengths of time, even in my lifetime. Plants and animals evolve constantly, with and without the help of science. As applied to man's existance, various dead end humanoid lines have no scientific connection to man and did obviously exist.
Whether the Bible mentions dinasaurs or such creatures (dinasuar being a new word which was coined in the 18th century, would not be in biblical reading, but such words as behemouth are used) or not is a moot point. Genesis tells the story of modern man's emergence, according to Christian beliefs. It is not necessarily the history of all creatures or happenings on this living rock we inhabit and though a lot of Biblical scholars do hold that it is the complete history, I as a Christian do not find that to be a necessary belief nor a documented belief, through my constant reading of Genesis and related matter.
LOL, that does not answer your question, though.
As you define scientific theory, the Bible most certainly does fall with in the realm of at least part of your definition and since there is scientific evidence that modern man does match the age approximated in the Bible, the other half of scientific theory is established, being scientific evidence.
So yes, you can state that Creation as presented in the Bible is a scientific theory.
I have recently read two books, Ask for the Ancient Paths, by Jessica Jones, a lady who has had lifelong visions of the three heavens and interaction w/ those in each and another that I cannot put my hands on. The gentleman is an official of the Church of England and is also a Quantum Physisist. His scientific insite is fascinating, as he blends science and his Faith- lol, not light reading.
There are also several men leading the American movement of deeper spiritual life, particularly the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention political liason and the Pentecostal Church's science/political office who are practicing scientists as well as ministers. Both are responsible for the church finally acknowledging environmental responsibilities and getting involved on a widescale level.
Great question, thank you.

Answer 4

If you are coming from the premise that the Bible is the Word of God, infallible, then all scientific theory must agree with the Bible. If you don't believe the Bible, scientific theory (and that word isn't used lightly) is all you have. Your choice. Which makes the most sense? Something so spectacular as the vast expanse of the universe (even what we can see of it) moving in quadrillions of light years of space, in predictable orbit, or even this life-sustaining speck of dust we call earth...all coming from what, a spark? Or the intricacies of the human body and zillions of flora and fauna....coming from what, a fleck of slime? Isn't is easier to believe that some incredible, hugely powerful, unfathomably intelligent being was able to "speak and it was done, commanded and it stood fast" creating both the gigantic and the minute in a matter of one week, especially since he left a written record of it so you wouldn't have to "imagine a theory'? If your mind still slides towards the spark and the fleck, you may want to stop and consider where THOSE two came from. When you figure that out, you will have found the answer that "scientific theory" has failed to do. True science, however, supports the Bible, and that's not surprising.....they both have the same author.

Answer 5

many people believe that if it can not be proven false then it is actually true. however, there are people that see the bible as fact, and a fact is an accepted truth. therefore, the bible has gone beyond theory and claims to be factual. this is of course all inclusive when talking about the bible. i personally dont believe at all...

Answer 6

Gengi is trying to explain the following:

propositions fall into two classes, those that are testable and those that are not testable.

propositions [hypotheses, conjectures, theories] that are not testable can only be taken on faith.

We humans learn the answers to such propositions approximately as follows: the first such 'answer' we learn in life that meets our internal criteria for acceptability [which differs by psychology type] becomes our answer until displaced.

For about 1/3rd of humanity, such an answer can only be displaced by an overwhelming deluge of evidence. These people are almost literally locked into their faith-based answer for the rest of their lives -- on such untestable hypotheses only -- because there will never be such a deluge of evidence. {Aside: President Bush apparently has this psychology type.}

This 1/3 of humanity includes approx. 1/2 of the men and 1/6th of the women. [these proportions are not uniform across cultures, but are US averages].

This is why there are way more men who are religious zealots than women.

It is also why every major religion tries to inculcate their beliefs into children -- experience has shown that 1/3rd of them will become life-long adherents.

***
Imho, it follows from the above that provability criteria do not apply to religions [their basic tenets can not be tested] and thus your premise breaks down.

What works for science does not work for religion.

Answer 7

a Scientific theory need to be tested in order to be accepted, it must be peer reviewed and proven with experimental data (so it can be taken as fact). so it must be able to be tested so because the bible or the stories within it can not be tested it is not a Scientific theory.

Answer 8

You can not treat social sciences and natural science on the same plain. Social sciences are complex and unpredictable. As for gospel s of religions there is no proof that they ever existed Nature is always before us in the present. It is a different thing that we may have little knowledge of it and still solving its mysteries but religious stories are not present before us. So to say that we can not prove them wrong does noat fit into it. Their very exixtance is doubtful.

Answer 9

Originally hypotheses are just hunch theories, but when results of hunch can be independently reproduced it becomes scientific theory. If you believe in Creationism or evolution fine just don't try to water down science with your pseudo-science.

Answer 10

Since science is not a theory, but a fact, and history is not a story, but a fact, it seems that the Bible is a story , not a fact.