What would you think if someone told you a new discovery challenges the longheld belief that the distance from Surfers Paradise to Burleigh Heads is 10km, and suggests instead that the actual distance is now more likely to be 16km - or possibly even 75km?
You'd know straightaway that it's crazy. Rethinking the distance is simply impossible.
This linked article published in the New York Times shows scientists rethinking and squabbling over the alleged timing of the arrival of humans to the Americas.
To my mind, the fact that it's even possible to rethink previous beliefs about such a thing, and the fact that there is so much squabbling over what constitutes evidence, the fact that there is so much variation in the results, and the fact that the dispute is over something so pivotal to longheld assertions, shows that both the old and the new assertions lacked certainty. And not just by a few miles!
Read the article here
You'd know straightaway that it's crazy. Rethinking the distance is simply impossible.
This linked article published in the New York Times shows scientists rethinking and squabbling over the alleged timing of the arrival of humans to the Americas.
To my mind, the fact that it's even possible to rethink previous beliefs about such a thing, and the fact that there is so much squabbling over what constitutes evidence, the fact that there is so much variation in the results, and the fact that the dispute is over something so pivotal to longheld assertions, shows that both the old and the new assertions lacked certainty. And not just by a few miles!
Read the article here
In science, nothing is ever set in concrete. Since we do not and cannot know everything, there is always room for both error and for new data. There is always the possibility of new understanding of current data.
ReplyDeleteSo what if scientists disagree upon something? I take this as a positive sign. Unlike religion, science is supposed to challenge the status quo. Scientists are people too, don't forget. They have their pet ideas and their vested interests - a topic that has been the topic of many books.
That science reviews and updates its conclusions affords it flexibility. It has opportunity to correct itself and to strive ever closer to perfection.
Consider it in contrast with religion. Religion is a purely faith pursuit with ancient mythology as it foundation. If religion corrects itself, it is effectively undermining it primary proposition that it is god given. For this reason, religion is stuck in the past - left to outdated and disproven ideas. It cannot, by its very nature, be flexible.
Now there is nothing wrong with questioning science. Rather this is to be commended. This is how progress is made and mistakes corrected. How about questioning religion? Of course this is frowned upon by the religious establishment, and one who does so will incur the wrath of those at the top of the hierarchy. Were one to do this back in the dark ages, one's life was placed in jeopardy.
Now if you intend to question science, it surely helps to know something about that particular branch. A few days ago John, in defending the myth of Noah's Ark, you suggested to me that hydrogen and oxygen trapped in the Earth's mantle could magically combine to make water, magically transport itself to the surface, then fall apart and return to the mantle as oxygen and hydrogen. Clearly you have not even attained a junior high school level of science education. So making these claims only makes you appear foolish.
Unlike religions, scientists don't just make stuff up. Fortunately, scientists are generally in accord. The fruits of science show us that it is a worthy pursuit.
Having discussed science with at some length, I have noticed that you only challenge science that conflicts with a literal reading of the bible. Why is that? It is because your world view is threatened by science. You and your church would like nothing more than to destroy science altogether since it undermines your precious religion.
It's interesting that the only science which contradicts your reading of the Bible are sciences for which there is no directly observable practical evidence or application.
DeleteAs for Noah's flood, I stand by my statement that science can't currently rule-out the likelihood that there is enough water