> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:54 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Letter to dangerous bible nutz
> 
> That there is a God. It's a theory that science doesn't want to admit as a
> theory at the same time as they push theory as fact.
>

Science truly has no truck with the "God" question.

It is, by definition, a matter of faith, not proof were science it
considered proof-based.

But please - let's not also rehash "theory" - before we can POSSIBLY have a
discussion on this we MUST all understand what science means by "theory".

In short:

"Hypothesis" is a conjecture made but not proven.  It's usually an
intelligent conjecture, but conjecture nonetheless.

"Law" is a simple statement of fact.  Scientific laws govern very specific
actions - the "Law of Angular Momentum" is clearly bounded and defined.
There's no (or damn little) "wiggle room" in a law.

"Theory" is a collection of facts, observations and proven predictions that
govern a complex area of inquiry.  Theories are verifiable through
experimentation (or in some advanced sciences through mathematical proofs).


Theories are considered "fact" at the their core buy scientists, but are
still highly debatable at the detail level.  Scientifically Theories are
proven mechanisms for observable events.

Consider a lay person studying (for the first time), say, a pencil and a
Jetliner.  The pencil is like a scientific law - it's simple, encompasses a
very narrow area of inquiry and is clearly defined: press it on the paper
and you get a line.  Pressure, paper quality, etc all enter into it, but
they are completely controllable, definable variables in dealing with the
pencil.

The Jetliner is clearly defined as well: people get on, it flies and people
get off.  There is no question amongst reasonable people that the jetliner
moved the people.  However the specifics of the jetliner are much, much more
complex.  How does it work?  We might assume that the wings provide lift and
the engines thrust - these may enter into the "Theory of Jetliners" as
hypothesis and later become so well explored as to become core parts of the
theory, but there are still nearly infinite ways to further explore.
Infinite ways to tweak the component idea without changing the core facts
involved.

That's why there will never be a scientific law (or "fact") of Jetliners -
or of evolution (or relativity, or quantum mechanics or planetary
development or many other things).  These fields are simply too large and
complex to state "laws", but the fundamental nature of them is not disputed
(in science).

"Is there a God" is not testable as a scientific theory.  It simply isn't.

This isn't a bad thing, of course, but it does present some issues when
asked to teach it in science class.

Jim Davis




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta
http://www.newatlanta.com

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:140042
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to