Science vs. religion is a three-way split?

[OldSchool2]

from RNS:

"Meet the 'Post-Seculars' — the one in five Americans who seem to have gone unnoticed before in endless rounds of debates pitting science vs. religion.

"They’re more strongly religious than most 'Traditionals' (43 percent of Americans), and more scientifically knowledgeable than 'Moderns' (36 percent) who stand on science alone, according to two sociologists’ findings in a new study...."

http://www.religionnews.com/2015/01/29/science-religion-evolution-big-bang/

"Put another way, there’s a sizable chunk of Americans out there who are both religious and scientifically minded but who break with both packs when faith and science collide.

"Post-Seculars pick and choose among science and religion views to create their own 'personally compelling way of understanding the world....'"

And yes, the linked story contains graphs.

[Riverwalker]

Faith and Science do not collide. God made everything including science

 

It is pseudo science, that which is theory that is expressed as fact  but is not that is the problem.

 

Once again it comes down to truth and lie.

 

Science should never be about maybes. When it speculates beyond the evidence presented it loses its credibility. And we become incredulous.

 

In it's pure form, science is 100% compatible with Faith and Christianity

 

things only get fouled up when we impose our opinions

 

and this is true for both Christianity and Science

Edited January 29, 2015 by Riverwalker

[Guest Teditis]

Well said, Riverwalker!

[OldSchool2]

Faith and Science do not collide. God made everything including science

 

It is pseudo science, that which is theory that is expressed as fact  but is not that is the problem.

 

Once again it comes down to truth and lie.

 

Science should never be about maybes ...

But almost all science starts with a "maybe" called a hypothesis.

[Guest Teditis]

To the best of my knowledge, In it's older forms, the word "Science" meant "to know"...

not to think I have a good idea.

It didn't refer to the process of studying, like it has become in modern times. Nor were the

two ideas muddled into one thing that is used to confuse (almost by design, I might add).

[enoob57]

Everything is being driven to no absolutes... as God is eternally absolute so satan

manipulates the system toward the denial of reality! Love, Steven

[OldSchool2]

To the best of my knowledge, In it's older forms, the word "Science" meant "to know"...

not to think I have a good idea ...

Einstein thought he had some good ideas about relativity and tried to prove his hypothesis with a "thought experiment".

[Guest Teditis]

Right but that's not science, in the sense that it's something "known"...

that's trying to figure something out through scientific (known) processes.

It's often referred to as Scientific Method.

[MorningGlory]

Faith and Science do not collide. God made everything including science

 

It is pseudo science, that which is theory that is expressed as fact  but is not that is the problem.

 

Once again it comes down to truth and lie.

 

Science should never be about maybes. When it speculates beyond the evidence presented it loses its credibility. And we become incredulous.

 

In it's pure form, science is 100% compatible with Faith and Christianity

 

things only get fouled up when we impose our opinions

 

and this is true for both Christianity and Science

 

For me, it comes down to the sentence I have bolded in your post. 

[Enoch2021]

 

Faith and Science do not collide. God made everything including science

 

It is pseudo science, that which is theory that is expressed as fact  but is not that is the problem.

 

Once again it comes down to truth and lie.

 

Science should never be about maybes ...

But almost all science starts with a "maybe" called a hypothesis.

 

 

Factually Incorrect.

 

ALL "Science" starts with Step 1 of the Scientific Method:  1. Observe a Phenomenon (an ACTION statement, not Observing "Nouns")

 

Then proceeds to a Hypothesis:

 

"A hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1775842/scientific-hypothesis

 

"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations."

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm

 

You then proceed to Hypothesis TESTING....complete with:  Dependent, Independent, and Control Variables; to Validate/Invalidate the Hypothesis.

 

If the "Phenomenon" is not OBSERVED and/or is not repeatable; Ergo....UNTESTABLE, such as.... Past Events, Cosmology et al, then you MUST start over with Step 1.