Science vs. religion is a three-way split?

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Science as it's being used here can really be broken down to a couple of disciplines.  No one here is arguing against chemistry or electricity, etc.  The three areas most concerning to Christians seem to be physics, biology and astronomy.  There may be some moral or ethical issues with how chemistry and electricity are applied, but by and large we are zoned in on astronomy, biology and physics.

 

Theoretical science starts with an idea which becomes a hypothesis.  A test of the hypothesis may take years to develop.  Einstein once made a prediction (hypothesis) which could not be tested during his lifetime.  Before Einstein died, he recanted his hypothesis, and called it his biggest mistake.  Hawking comes along and makes a hypothesis contrary to anything Einstein predicted or recanted.  Finally, a few years ago a couple of Italian scientists devised an experiment to prove Hawking's hypothesis.  Instead, they ended up proving Einstein was correct in the first place.  We are talking about 50+ years between hypothesis and repeatable experimental proof. The only thing Einstein was wrong about was doubting his original premise (hypothesis), now proven true.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Nobody-2441

[OldSchool2]

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.

So scientific method isn't science the way ISIS isn't Islamic?

[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.

So scientific method isn't science the way ISIS isn't Islamic?

 

 

That's the way I see it... remember the definition that I'm using though:

Science=knowledge.

 

Learning knowledge isn't science... it's just learning.

Of course one can use known facts (science) to test a hypothesis... and

some call that process science as well, but I do not.

[Enoch2021]

Science as it's being used here can really be broken down to a couple of disciplines.  No one here is arguing against chemistry or electricity, etc.  The three areas most concerning to Christians seem to be physics, biology and astronomy. 

 

Astronomy/Cosmology isn't 'science"; it's an Equivocation (Fallacy).

 

To be "Science" it has to be Empirical:  Observable, Measurable/TESTABLE, Repeatable, Falsifiable:

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.

 

 

Theoretical science starts with an idea which becomes a hypothesis.  A test of the hypothesis may take years to develop.

 

 

Theoretical Science Is an Oxymoron and an Equivocation Fallacy with the term "Science" on the end.  It's a "lipstick on a pig" scenario 

 

"Theoretical"- confined to abstractions not practical applications; Conjecture, Un-Proven/Un-TESTED, Speculative; NOT Empirical.  The Antithesis of "Science".

 

 

The only thing Einstein was wrong about was doubting his original premise (hypothesis), now proven true.

 

 

Really?  Go ahead.....?

 

Define Physics....?

 

Define Mathematics.....?

[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.

 

Factually Incorrect.

 

ALL "Science" starts with Step 1 of the Scientific Method:  1. Observe a Phenomenon ...

The way some Pentecostals believe Christianity starts with 1. Glossolalia?

[SavedOnebyGrace]

 

Science as it's being used here can really be broken down to a couple of disciplines.  No one here is arguing against chemistry or electricity, etc.  The three areas most concerning to Christians seem to be physics, biology and astronomy. 

 

Astronomy/Cosmology isn't 'science"; it's an Equivocation (Fallacy).

 

To be "Science" it has to be Empirical:  Observable, Measurable/TESTABLE, Repeatable, Falsifiable:

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.

 

 

Theoretical science starts with an idea which becomes a hypothesis.  A test of the hypothesis may take years to develop.

 

 

Theoretical Science Is an Oxymoron and an Equivocation Fallacy with the term "Science" on the end.  It's a "lipstick on a pig" scenario 

 

"Theoretical"- confined to abstractions not practical applications; Conjecture, Un-Proven/Un-TESTED, Speculative; NOT Empirical.  The Antithesis of "Science".

 

 

The only thing Einstein was wrong about was doubting his original premise (hypothesis), now proven true.

 

 

Really?  Go ahead.....?

 

Define Physics....?

 

Define Mathematics.....?

 

Why?  I don't think you are capable of understanding.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Science as it's being used here can really be broken down to a couple of disciplines.  No one here is arguing against chemistry or electricity, etc.  The three areas most concerning to Christians seem to be physics, biology and astronomy. 

 

Astronomy/Cosmology isn't 'science"; it's an Equivocation (Fallacy).

 

To be "Science" it has to be Empirical:  Observable, Measurable/TESTABLE, Repeatable, Falsifiable:

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.

 

 

Theoretical science starts with an idea which becomes a hypothesis.  A test of the hypothesis may take years to develop.

 

 

Theoretical Science Is an Oxymoron and an Equivocation Fallacy with the term "Science" on the end.  It's a "lipstick on a pig" scenario 

 

"Theoretical"- confined to abstractions not practical applications; Conjecture, Un-Proven/Un-TESTED, Speculative; NOT Empirical.  The Antithesis of "Science".

 

 

The only thing Einstein was wrong about was doubting his original premise (hypothesis), now proven true.

 

 

Really?  Go ahead.....?

 

Define Physics....?

 

Define Mathematics.....?

 

Why?  I don't think you are capable of understanding.

 

 

 

Let's TEST IT....?  

 

I've called your "bluff" like 5 times on various topics and all you have posted (Each Time) are One-Liner, Hand Wave Dismissal----- Baseless Drive-By's in response.  You've supported nothing you've posted---- either Scientifically/Scripturally/Logically, in this forum that I've come across

 

You can always post your Resume....again.

[Bonky]

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.

From the article:

— Traditionals, who lean toward religion, scored lower on science facts and were least likely to agree that “the benefits of scientific research outweigh the harmful results.”

Easy way to answer the question in the 21st century, spend some time in a village during the black plague era and see if they'd poll the same way.