Earth's Population Refutes Evolution

[jcm]

Yes, science is never 100% proven. However, science has evidence, and is flexible enough to look at itself and entertain evidence that it may be in contradictory. If the preponderance of valid and reliable data is there, science will revise itself.

Try comparing that to dogma.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

The thing is that the 'science will revise itself' bit is supposed to be true, but isn't always. Scientists can be as stubborn and dogmatic in their beliefs as anyone else.

Now, about faith. What 'valid and reliable data' as you put it, does one rely on to make conclusions regarding faith? Can science provide such answers? I would say no. It is not in the scope of science to say anything about the existence or nature of God.

To be clear I am not 'anti-science'. I do consider myself something of a (non-practicing) scientist.

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear jcm,

This is just my opinion. You need not accept it if you don't like it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Now, about faith. What 'valid and reliable data' as you put it, does one rely on to make conclusions regarding faith? Can science provide such answers? I would say no. It is not in the scope of science to say anything about the existence or nature of God.

I agree with you for the most part. I'm sure there are some scientists who are stubborn and dogmatic. But I think TRUE scientists will entertain theories that are contrary to their own if presented with data.

Science cannot provide the answers about the existence or nature of God. It is beyond science's purview. Without objective verifiable reliable data, science is silent.

Therefore, the only way to answer such questions is for each individual with his/her subjective experiences to determine the existence and nature of God(s). That's probably why there are so many different people worshipping many different gods. And there are some who don't worship any god. It is not surprising to me.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[Bread_of_Life]

jcm

The thing is that the 'science will revise itself' bit is supposed to be true, but isn't always. Scientists can be as stubborn and dogmatic in their beliefs as anyone else.

Scientists can be stubborn and dogmatic, you're right. Can this delay progress - yes, it can do.

However, it does not stunt progress - indeed, it usually means that when a new theory overturns an old established one, that the evidence for the new theory is very strong and robust - and that a lot of testing, argument and prediction has taken place to convince even the strongest skeptic.

And it does happen - for example, Newtonian Mechanics, the oldest theory in science, was overturned at the start of the last century by quantum mechanics. Was there argument? Sure. Were there stubborn classicists? Absolutely. Did it take a while? Yes. But it happened, and now we have an excellent and well tested evidence base for Quantum Mechanics that we wouldn't have had without the process of competitive and aggressive peer review we went through.