fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
How does the process start then?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists/ IDers:
- Thread starter nonbeliever_92
- Start date
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Then let's call it speculation and put it in the speculation classroom and not science.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Then the question arises again, how does the scientific process start?
Science is a study of what's around us- the earth, ocean, outer space, ourselves, etc. Evolution is only one type of science, out of thousands of types. If you go only upon empirical evidence, would you come up with different answers than if you used theories and experiments to go with the empirical evidence?
Don't you have to experiment a lot to change a theory into a natural law? (You know, prove it beyond a shadow of doubt).
Don't you have to experiment a lot to change a theory into a natural law? (You know, prove it beyond a shadow of doubt).
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Actually, evolution is a subset of biology (evolutionary biology), and is an intricate part of all other branches of biology. Evolution is also reinforced by anthropology, archeology, geology and many other branches of science.
A theory does not become Natural Law, a theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
It is already a known scientific fact that evolution occurs. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation based on proven hypotheses and verified multiple times through experimentation, predictability and observation, of the already verified fact of biological evolution.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
More importantly is how does it end? With common descent it stops at speculation and hypothesis.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Christine, you consider yourself a Creationist/ ID advocate?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Verified through predictive results, testability, and observation in biology, genetics, anthropology, biogeography, paleontology, biochemistry, etc, etc...
Why do you have a problem that there is speculation in science?
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Because that is what is thrown at creationists, creation is not science. But if specualation is science then anything is science.
Apart from retaliation, "what is thrown at creationists," why is speculation in science a problem?
Is it because speculation isn't truth?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
It's not speculation that disqualifies Creationism, it's the opposite. Creationists start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it. Science starts with a question and looks for evidence to support it OR rule it out.
If science excluded speculation, it would never get anywhere. New ideas are vital to the process.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
The problem is that Creationists cannot move on to the next step in the scientific method beyond speculation to verification, testability, and falsifiability.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
It isn't science unless it operates within the scientific method. Common descent of all life forms hasn't been observed. If a hypothesis is to be part of the scientific method it has to be made on something that is observed.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
It is...
Therefore it has moved beyond speculation to a verified theory.
In accordance with the scientific method.
While Creationism lingers in the speculative mode without providing any predictive results, testability or observation.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Nice dodge.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Are you still trotting this one out? Electron orbitals haven't been observed: on that basis, are you going to exclude from science the whole of chemistry and much of physics?
As chemists have done with electron orbitals, evolutionary biologists take what can be observed and work back to a pretty good model of what gave rise to that state; they then test that model in all ways possible, and modify or reject it if it fails the tests. Despite your robotic denials, this is science.
Testable speculation is science. And before you retort that evolution by common descent isn't testable, be assured that it is. Those good old Precambrian rabbits would knock it on the head straight away.Originally Posted by Man of Faith
Because that is what is thrown at creationists, creation is not science. But if specualation is science then anything is science.
Last edited:
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
True, and it does, speculation that is. Speculation can be considered the hypothesis, or as they used to call it in my Middle School science classes, the "If-Then Statement."
ex. If plants need sunlight, soil, and water to grow, then without them a plant will not grow. (very basic, I know)
Common descent in this case would be the conclusion, in fact it's what I'd consider a conclusive hypothesis. It's because of observations and examinations of the fossil records, animal homology, geologic adaptions, DNA evidence, and speciation that gives plausibility to the concept of Common Descent, not the other way around.
No,
not really. I just haven't been posting much lately and wanted to talk. (I really shouldn't post in these, because although I studied it a bit, I am not really overly interested in evolution. But I did like Physical Anthropology a lot)
But I am a Christian- no doubt. I just happen to like science, too. I suppose I am more interested how the world works now and not really worried how it all started.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
OK, I didn't think so.No,
not really. I just haven't been posting much lately and wanted to talk. (I really shouldn't post in these, because although I studied it a bit, I am not really overly interested in evolution. But I did like Physical Anthropology a lot)
But I am a Christian- no doubt. I just happen to like science, too. I suppose I am more interested how the world works now and not really worried how it all started.