Do Scientists Have "Faith" in the Same Sense some Christians do?

[DavidFirth]

You haven't told me what these supposedly unevidenced hypothetical assumptions are

Theory:- Animals Start from common ancestors that have, over time diverged in modern different groups through evolution.

Prediction:- Fossils with features intermediate between every major living animal groups with hard parts will be found, with further later fossils showing more and more features of modern animal groups.

Later observation:- Fossils with features intermediate between major animal groups are found for almost every group, with progressive approach towards modern features in more recent fossils

Conclusion:- The prediction made by evolution vindicated. Hence truth of evolution is based on successful predictions and not hypothesis.

I see no assumptions here.

That is totally wrong. You only assume those fossils have intermediate features. You cannot prove they are. You believe they are based on your faith.

You don't see assumptions because you just accept your assumptions as facts. That's wrong!

If I say those fossils are not intermediate forms and assume they're not then I'm making the same error you have made.

 

[Grandliseur]

Well, I am happy to discuss this with any PhD creationists anywhere in the forum. Please invite one. Also I am happy to discuss any claims of scientific dishonesty of evolutionary biologists you want to present.

Good luck with that; these mystical beings live in rarefied air, in different dimensions than ordinary people do! They only come down on earth when putting gas in their cars or when dining out.

I wonder what you get out of preaching evolution, so to say. It contains no hope for earth or mankind.
Whatever the case, I have a link with different subjects you may or may not be interested in. Unfortunately, I think the PhD is also a YEC, which I am not at all. So, as is usually the case, I go at things on my own, on a road rarely traveled.

Link: >Browse Media - Genesis Conflict - English/ - Amazing Discoveries TV<

Also I am happy to discuss any claims of scientific dishonesty of evolutionary biologists you want to present.

I'll keep that in mind next time I run across such. I used to study such things; but, have run into a living hell. This means I just get by with doing a little of this and a little of that. (No need to bother others with my old age problems)

 

[sayak83]

That is totally wrong. You only assume those fossils have intermediate features. You cannot prove they are. You believe they are based on your faith.

You don't see assumptions because you just accept your assumptions as facts. That's wrong!

If I say those fossils are not intermediate forms and assume they're not then I'm making the same error you have made.

The intermediate nature of the fossil bone structure can be objectively ascertained without taking recourse to evolution at all. This is completely mathematical in nature. Consider for example the structure of teeth. In reptiles, all teeth are shaped identically and this can quantified mathematically by comparing the surface form of the front and back teeth in the jaw and quantifying the degree of shape difference. Now we can plot living mammals and living reptile teeth similarity in a chart. The similarity index will have high values for all surfaces for reptiles and low values for mammals. Next one looks at fossil animals. First we see ancient reptiles who also show similarity in teeth form. Then, in a period of ancient earth called Permian, creatures with teeth similarity indices intermediate between reptilian and mammalian groups are found and these intermediate fossils, over time approach mammalian index values until in the next period, late Triassic, teeth indices close to several mammal groups living today are found in fossils.

Of course teeth are not the only index that can be quantified in such a manner. There are several other key features where reptiles and mammals differ in bone structure. Examples include a different jaw joint, bigger side, skull cavities for stronger jaw muscle attachment, a three boned ear that provides a directional hearing ability, a more sophisticated shoulder and hip joint so that legs can be below the body trunk rather than splayed to the sides (like lizards), and eventually changes in female bone structure to make room for live delivery. The transition from cold blooded to hot blooded also changes the internal microstructure of bones and growth patterns which can be observed if juvenile fossils are found. All of these together can be compared between reptiles and mammals and it is seen quantitatively that the fossils of the Permian period are indeed intermediate in bone structure with respect to all these features, and approach mammalian variable values over the rest of the early Mesozoic period.

 

[DavidFirth]

Perhaps an example could be made using the chapter in the Bible regarding Joshua, saying to God, "O sun, stand still over Gibeon", and the sun and the moon "stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down by a full day." Science will tell us that this didn't happen, and will provide records of observations over time, and all the data proving the earth goes around the sun, not vice-versa... evidence that can be evaluated by anyone and everyone. What evidence do you offer for the faith based notion that appears in the Bible? How about other humans living around the world at the same time, maybe the Mayas or Incas, or whoever else was living at the time, surely they would have recorded something, even if they didn't know that the earth rotates about the sun, not the opposite.
"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." Attributed to Ferdinand Magellan. The church, apparently 'believed', and wanted the earth to be the center of everything for some reason, so they declared it so. Magellan simply submits his scientific observations for you to evaluate. Belief and science......

The Bible is always right as far as I'm concerned. What the church says may or may not be right.

Just because it says the sun stopped going down does not imply (as you have done) that the Sun orbits the Earth; it simply means what it says. The sun stopped going down because either God stopped the Earth in its rotation or it was all presented to Joshua in a vision much like Revelation was presented to John.

Remember that God is all powerful in the Bible and there are no limitations on what is possible for Him. God could make it happen for Joshua and no one else if He had wanted to.

This was a one time miracle and therefore there is nothing in history to point to and say, "See, it happened again here and again there" because it only happened once that I know of.

You can't repeat the Big Bang, either. It either happened or it didn't, based on what you choose to believe. Scientists cannot create life from non-life in a lab. Abiogenesis either happened or it didn't based on what you choose to believe.

 

[sayak83]

Good luck with that; these mystical beings live in rarefied air, in different dimensions that ordinary people do! They only come down on earth when putting gas in their cars or when dining out.

I wonder what you get out of preaching evolution, so to say. It contains no hope for earth or mankind.
Whatever the case, I have a link with different subjects you may or may not be interested in. Unfortunately, I think the PhD is also a YEC, which I am not at all. So, as is usually the case, I go at things on my own, on a road rarely traveled.

Link: >Browse Media - Genesis Conflict - English/ - Amazing Discoveries TV<


I'll keep that in mind next time I run across such. I used to study such things; but, have run into a living hell. This means I just get by with doing a little of this and a little of that. (No need to bother others with my old age problems)

I have a PhD, though my field is mostly organic chemistry and thermodynamics. I am certainly not a mystical being and I have reasonable competence in physics and biology which my field straddles.
Sorry to hear you are going through tough times. Hang in there. Hope we have more discussion later. It's difficult to maintain interest in looking at links unless a specific topic is being discussed with a member here. Otherwise I am busy saving the world... by writing papers.

 

[DavidFirth]

The intermediate nature of the fossil bone structure can be objectively ascertained without taking recourse to evolution at all. This is completely mathematical in nature. Consider for example the structure of teeth. In reptiles, all teeth are shaped identically and this can quantified mathematically by comparing the surface form of the front and back teeth in the jaw and quantifying the degree of shape difference. Now we can plot living mammals and living reptile teeth similarity in a chart. The similarity index will have high values for all surfaces for reptiles and low values for mammals. Next one looks at fossil animals. First we see ancient reptiles who also show similarity in teeth form. Then, in a period of ancient earth called Permian, creatures with teeth similarity indices intermediate between reptilian and mammalian groups are found and these intermediate fossils, over time approach mammalian index values until in the next period, late Triassic, teeth indices close to several mammal groups living today are found in fossils.

Of course teeth are not the only index that can be quantified in such a manner. There are several other key features where reptiles and mammals differ in bone structure. Examples include a different jaw joint, bigger side, skull cavities for stronger jaw muscle attachment, a three boned ear that provides a directional hearing ability, a very shoulder and hip joint so that legs can be below the body trunk rather than splayed to the sides (like lizards), and eventually changes in female bone structure to make room for live delivery. The transition from cold blooded to hot blooded also changes the internal microstructure of bones and growth patterns which can be observed if juvenile fossils are found. All of these together can be compared between reptiles and mammals and it is seen quantitatively that the fossils of the Permian period are indeed intermediate in bone structure with respect to all these features, and approach mammalian variable values over the rest of the early Mesozoic period.

But all of that proves nothing except that your faith in all of the methods above is correct enough so that you believe it. God could have and did, in my opinion, create the creatures whose remains you study. You haven't proved that He didn't and you haven't proved that He couldn't have.

You simply believe there was a Mesozoic period while I do not believe in millions of years at all. You cannot prove millions of years have passed so you believe they did based on what you stated above.

 

[Augustus]

Your thoughts?

In general I agree with you.

One thing I've noticed in discussions on science though is that science is always treated as a normative abstraction rather than as a real world human activity with all of the flaws that this entails.

So there is a normative, ideal-type scientific endeavour which contrasts with the diversity of positive experience.

First, it utterly ignores the fact that most scientists do not "staunchly" believe in a scientific explanation (such as evolution), but rather only tentatively accept it as currently the best available explanation, and would be willing to discard it should a better explanation come about. Contrast this with the ideal of Christian faith as unshakeable. So, to equate the alleged "faith" of scientists with the faith of Christians would seem to be a mistake.

While normatively correct, scientists can be extremely married to their positions. Reputation, income, funding, self-worth, etc. can prevent someone from being open to changing their mind on an issue. Scientific disputes can also become quite personal (such as EO Wilson v Richard Dawkins regarding perspectives on natural selection).

As Max Planck noted, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Last, some people like to argue that the sciences are based on scientific axioms which are equivalent to "things taken on faith". Yet, scientists would most likely discard or modify axioms that conflicted with experimental observations, but people who take things on faith tend to value doing so steadfastly, even in the face of conflicting reasoning and evidence. Hence, there seems to be a distinction between how scientific axioms and things taken on faith are treated by their respective communities.

There is plenty of evidence that there are methodological issues in many of the sciences resulting in a 'replication crisis' (according to some).

Statistical significance as calculated via p seems to be a major issue, yet is enduring and has many defenders. (if you want a bit of fun, you can use this tool to 'scientifically' prove that Republican/Democrats are good/bad for the economy to sufficient statistical significance to meet the publication threshold)

This again is an example in the normative/positive divide.

For those, and for other reasons, the criticism of some Christians that scientific explanations require as much or more faith as religious explanations seems to me shallow and simplistic.

While I do believe that the real world process of formal scientific enquiry is significantly removed from the normative expectations, I still agree with you on this. That real world sciences often don't live up to the normative goals doesn't mean they never do or that they are simply blind faith.

Some people do seem to have an almost religious faith in the efficacy and potential of the sciences (scientism) though.

 

[sayak83]

But all of that proves nothing except that your faith in all of the methods above is correct enough so that you believe it. God could have and did, in my opinion, create the creatures whose remains you study. You haven't proved that He didn't and you haven't proved that He couldn't have.

You simply believe there was a Mesozoic period while I do not believe in millions of years at all. You cannot prove millions of years have passed so you believe they did based on what you stated above.

What has been shown is that the evidence of intermediate nature of the fossils can be determined quantitatively without assuming evolutionary theory at all. Further evolutionary theory predicts the presence of fossils with such intermediate forms, and since the evidence validating this prediction comes independently, it is a true validation of the theory without any assumptions.

One can as well say that there is no such thing as gravity caused by attraction between masses and God is holding all the planets and stars on their courses bending light around the sun and pulling us towards the ground with his spiritual power. After all God can certainly do all of this making the match with predictions from theory of gravity merely coincidence. This holds true for all of science. For example one can say it's not oil that's running the car engine but rather God, who in His mysterious wisdom is only imbuing the car with the spirit of motion when it has oil in its tank.

Fortunately science does not work like that. It creates theories and makes predictions. When it's predictions are independently observed to be true, the theory is vindicated and otherwise falsified.

 

[Grandliseur]

I am certainly not a mystical being

An exception to the rule is also according to the rule of the exceptions.

So many of the somewhat famous PhDs are living isolated lives, perhaps forced by circumstance. If I were studying at some university, I have access to 'my professors;' otherwise, unlikely. I once wrote Professor Michio Kaku about a subject he had given opinions about; never heard from him or his assistants.

Funny, though, that while my credentials aren't anything like yours, I still taught at a university (no names) for 7 years. They still keep sending me emails even after 6 years of 'leave of absence.' Perhaps, the office staff doesn't know I am gone! Kind of funny. Too bad the payroll staff didn't make the same mistake.

 

[corynski]

The Bible is always right as far as I'm concerned. What the church says may or may not be right.

Just because it says the sun stopped going down does not imply (as you have done) that the Sun orbits the Earth; it simply means what it says. The sun stopped going down because either God stopped the Earth in its rotation or it was all presented to Joshua in a vision much like Revelation was presented to John.

Remember that God is all powerful in the Bible and there are no limitations on what is possible for Him. God could make it happen for Joshua and no one else if He had wanted to.

This was a one time miracle and therefore there is nothing in history to point to and say, "See, it happened again here and again there" because it only happened once that I know of.

You can't repeat the Big Bang, either. It either happened or it didn't, based on what you choose to believe. Scientists cannot create life from non-life in a lab. Abiogenesis either happened or it didn't based on what you choose to believe.

David Firth said, 'The Bible is always right as far as I'm concerned.' Even John 12:23? "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds."

 

[corynski]

The Bible is always right as far as I'm concerned. What the church says may or may not be right.

Just because it says the sun stopped going down does not imply (as you have done) that the Sun orbits the Earth; it simply means what it says. The sun stopped going down because either God stopped the Earth in its rotation or it was all presented to Joshua in a vision much like Revelation was presented to John.

Remember that God is all powerful in the Bible and there are no limitations on what is possible for Him. God could make it happen for Joshua and no one else if He had wanted to.

This was a one time miracle and therefore there is nothing in history to point to and say, "See, it happened again here and again there" because it only happened once that I know of.

You can't repeat the Big Bang, either. It either happened or it didn't, based on what you choose to believe. Scientists cannot create life from non-life in a lab. Abiogenesis either happened or it didn't based on what you choose to believe.

David Firth said, "Remember that God is all powerful in the Bible and there are no limitations on what is possible for Him."
Are you saying God could stop all suffering if He wanted to? That God could have eliminated all of the thousands of years of human suffering if he had wanted to? Hmmm....

 

[sayak83]

An exception to the rule is also according to the rule of the exceptions.

So many of the somewhat famous PhDs are living isolated lives, perhaps forced by circumstance. If I were studying at some university, I have access to 'my professors;' otherwise, unlikely. I once wrote Professor Michio Kaku about a subject he had given opinions about; never heard from him or his assistants.

Funny, though, that while my credentials aren't anything like yours, I still taught at a university (no names) for 7 years. They still keep sending me emails even after 6 years of 'leave of absence.' Perhaps, the office staff doesn't know I am gone! Kind of funny. Too bad the payroll staff didn't make the same mistake.

Well I am doing post-doctorates. Applying for professorships.That explains my greater free time.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you really believe that statement you must be going through life with blinders on and earplugs in.

Find me a quote from one secular scientist besides you that says evolution is not correct. You might be able to find one but it will most likely take you a while to find it.

The word 'correct' is a layman's term and misleading. I am not aware of any scientists using it in a technical journal. If you believe so please cite the source. You perpetually use misleading layman's terminology such as proof, proven, true, and correct to describe science.

By definition 'correct' is used to describe a fact 'free from error' that is true and not false, which science does not use.
From: correct definitions - Google Search
Correct - free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.

It is justified that scientists consider the science of evolution falsified beyond a reasonable doubt, and no other explanation has been falsified by scientific methods.

The Bible is always right as far as I'm concerned. What the church says may or may not be right.

This belief lies at the root of your objections to science, unfortunately there are literally hundreds of interpretations, and different churches that interpret the Bible differently. What Divine mandate makes your interpretation 'right' and the other interpretations are wrong?

 

[sayak83]

The word 'correct' is a layman's term and misleading. I am not aware of any scientists using it in a technical journal. If you believe so please cite the source. You perpetually use misleading layman's terminology such as proof, proven, true, and correct to describe science

It is justified that scientists consider the science of evolution falsified beyond a reasonable doubt, and no other explanation has been falsified by scientific methods.

Umm.. Falsified beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[shunyadragon]

Umm.. Falsified beyond reasonable doubt?

Yes, because science is not based on absolutes, and the knowledge of science including the science of evolution is subject to change over time.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, because science is not based on absolutes, and the knowledge of science including the science of evolution is subject to change over time.

Well, science of evolution has not been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt. Quite the opposite. It's been supported by evidence and experiments. It's falsifiable, not falsified.

 

[Grandliseur]

Well I am doing post-doctorates. Applying for professorships.That explains my greater free time.

I admit to ignorance, but I think that at times, the teaching profession is a lot less paid than if finding jobs in the business world. If you have studied in Organic Chemistry, should the medical profession be a target with a well paid position, developing medicines, or even Biochemistry, the Petroleum industry, etc.

Sorry, this is your business, not mine.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, science of evolution has not been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt. Quite the opposite. It's been supported by evidence and experiments. It's falsifiable, not falsified.

Your splitting 'frog hairs' over terminology, I consider falsifiable is the potential of the 'ability to be falsified,' the science of evolution is beyond this. I believe the past tense 'falsified' is an adequate description of the present state of the science of evolution.

Example: Many theories and hypothesis concerning the existence of a multiverse may or may not be falsifiable. The different hypothesis proposed for the 'multiverse' are not completely accepted as falsified.

 

[sayak83]

I admit to ignorance, but I think that at times, the teaching profession is a lot less paid than if finding jobs in the business world. If you have studied in Organic Chemistry, should the medical profession be a target with a well paid position, developing medicines, or even Biochemistry, the Petroleum industry, etc.

Sorry, this is your business, not mine.

True. Though I am trying to get on one of the Indian universities so that I can do research and teaching in my home country. India needs a lot of developing and I hope to do a little bit for my country.

 

[Grandliseur]

True. Though I am trying to get on one of the Indian universities so that I can do research and teaching in my home country. India needs a lot of developing and I hope to do a little bit for my country.

Be sure you count the cost to yourself. Getting stuck in a position in which you may be paid pennies - (I checked what people get paid in China; perhaps India is not that high either?), may also hurt your resume and chances for employment in the West later on?! Suggest starting at the top of your choices and work your way down. Work experience for a good company looks good on your resume.

Getting off topic here. Hope the best for you.