Errors in Science!

[OldRegular]

Since science has been presented on this forum as the infallible truth I thought it might be worthwhile to point out some of the errors that have been propounded as truth in the history of science.

I will only start off with one and hopefully stimulate the memories of some of you to post others.

The one that comes first to my memory is that at one time science stated that all matter consisted of "earth, air, fire, and water".

So come on folks just by reciting a little of the history of science we can demonstrate that science is not truth but true science is only the search for truth.

 

[exscentric]

Just heard that they have changed their minds on black holes, now they believe every solar system has one, though they don't know what they are for.

 

[Scott J]

Maybe they are braking/acceleration devices that explain the expansion of the universe in non-uniformitarian terms.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Since science has been presented on this forum as the infallible truth I thought it might be worthwhile to point out some of the errors that have been propounded as truth in the history of science.



I don't think any of us has asserted that science is the ultimate authority. Science is nothing more than theories based on observations. And as such (as you have suggested) "science" has been wrong before, and undoubtedly is wrong about some things currently.

I would object to your initial remark however. You speak of science as if it is an entity unto itself - something that SHOULD BE VIEWED AS OPPOSED TO RELIGION.

Science is the making of observations based on things we see. In a sense it is just using the abilities God gave us.

On this point I will agree with Craig. I think that we should not be afraid to speculate based on observations - even if they seem to contradict what traditional religion has taught us. God gave us brains and abilities. Science is a human "ology" - but then so is "theOLOGY".

Genesis 1-11 has been traditionally seen as literal. Human observation is the realm of natural science suggest that the earth is alot older than Genesis would imply.

Thus one of the 2 human "ologies" is wrong here. You seem to want to say that to find a literal Genesis as wrong implies that we are reproving God and His word. I argue that we are reproving the human "ology" (in this case theology) which has errantly suggested that Genesis 1-11 was intended to be literal.

Now granted the other human "ology" (in this case science) could also be wrong. In this point you are correct.

But you seem to be equating the human ology (theology) with God's viewpoint - which I find a bit presumptious.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Since science has been presented on this forum as the infallible truth

I love the sciences but science is definitely not infallible and I have not seen anyone here assert that it is.

Originally posted by OldRegular:
I thought it might be worthwhile to point out some of the errors that have been propounded as truth in the history of science.

One of the the neat things about the scientific is a mechanism built in for criticism and self correction.

Originally posted by OldRegular:
The one that comes first to my memory is that at one time science stated that all matter consisted of "earth, air, fire, and water".

The "four elements" were the only things observed at that time by humans. Later we were able to observe in more detail to discover that those four were actually molecules made up of smaller atoms that we now call elements. Later we were able to observe in more detail to discover that atoms are made up of smaller things called protons, neutrons and electrons. Later we were able to observe in more detail to discover that protons and neutrons are made up of smaller things called quarks.

 

[Scott J]

I would object to your initial remark however. You speak of science as if it is an entity unto itself - something that SHOULD BE VIEWED AS OPPOSED TO RELIGION.

"Science" as it is now popularly viewed in academia concerning origins has more in common with religion than with the hard sciences.

It is based largely and sometimes wholly on "faith" in theories and naturalistic presuppositions. As contended by ID advocates (as separate from the main body of creationists), it rejects the notion that scientists should follow the facts anywhere they lead.

On my way to and from work, I pass a large field. There is a red and white pick up in that field. I didn't see the creator. I didn't see the process by which it was manufactured, used, and finally parked in that field. However, the evidence for design is so overwhelming that I would consider any proposal that the truck arrived there as the direct result of a tornado that ran through a Oklahoma junk yard and dropped that truck in that field as ridiculous... pure idiocy. And, if someone said it must have occurred this way even though we accept that intelligent actors were very well capable of making and placing that truck... I have to wonder what sacred cow they are trying to preserve.

But "science" asks us to look at something with far more complexity and order than a decaying pick up out in a pasture and just accept that it was created by some random process.

Sorry. But when I see order and information, I don't start looking for a way to account for its existence absent an intelligent creator.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Scott J:
But "science" asks us to look at something with far more complexity and order than a decaying pick up out in a pasture and just accept that it was created by some random process.

Science does not ask us to do any such thing. In fact much of science was the pursuit of finding the order that God created the universe in, an order that I believe includes evolution which is not random at all.

While science cannot be honestly done without an assumption of naturalism, that doesn't mean that naturalism is the all-encompassing philosophy that some scientists try to espouse.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
One of the the neat things about the scientific is a mechanism built in for criticism and self correction.

That is not evident as it pertains to the assumption of naturalism as a governing philosophy for explaining origins.

All about us in virtually every human experience we can see orderly, created things resulting from intelligence plus ability. Yet when it comes to creation these two things are denied by "science"... and science rather than being "self correcting" is even now in the process of circling the wagons against legitimate scientists who advocate ID.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Just an fyi that even atheistic evolution sources describe evolution as a scientific process that does not comment on the existence of God, preclude his existence or that He designed evolution.

PBS Evolution FAQ

11. Does evolution prove there is no God?

No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.

Talk Origins : God and Evolution

Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.
There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
But "science" asks us to look at something with far more complexity and order than a decaying pick up out in a pasture and just accept that it was created by some random process.

Science does not ask us to do any such thing.</font>[/QUOTE] True science doesn't not. But naturalism disguised as science very much does as it now manifests itself.

In fact much of science was the pursuit of finding the order that God created the universe in, an order that I believe includes evolution which is not random at all.

"Random" is not my word. It is a word used in countless quotes I have seen from evolutionists themselves.

I know that evolutionists are now struggling with the fact that so much order and information exists in creation and that this has made "random" and "chance" very inconvenient things. I also know that there are efforts to reword the arguments so this problem just goes away... but anyway you word it, a random mutation that meets a random favorable environment for preservation is a random process.

While science cannot be honestly done without an assumption of naturalism,

Wrong. Science can be done honestly with an assumption of a creator, a cause outside of nature.

Criminal forensics is that type of science. It operates on the assumption that evidence does not arrive somewhere by natural forces.

that doesn't mean that naturalism is the all-encompassing philosophy that some scientists try to espouse.

It is the all encompassing philosophy that serves as the foundation for evolution.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Just an fyi that even atheistic evolution sources describe evolution as a scientific process that does not comment on the existence of God, preclude his existence or that He designed evolution.

Never said they did.

They simply propose a theory that denies that the God of the Bible did/does anything with regard to creation.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Scott,

Sorry. But when I see order and information, I don't start looking for a way to account for its existence absent an intelligent creator.

I'll ask that you stop subtlely imputing bad afith to those of us with whom you disagree.

Your implication that old earthism is rooted in a desire to find a way to explain things without God is ridiculous - and slightly offensive.

In the case of the truck in the field. If you did some research you would find similar trucks on the roads. Further research might lead you to discover than your truck was produced by Chevrolet in 1976, thus dispelling rumors that it popped up by chance.

Regarding creation - the research we have done thus far suggests that things are OLD. That does not imply that they were not created intelligently.

 

[Scott J]

Charles, I don't find an absolute necessity to reject an "old universe" from a literal reading of Genesis 1.

It is an act of "reading between the lines" but you could say that day one begins with God's refining work on earth and/or our solar system rather than the actual starting moment of the universe itself. I see no biblical reason to accept this but wouldn't spend too much time arguing with those who believe it.

My contention is primarily with those who would suppose evolution and its time frames to explain life on earth.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:


In the case of the truck in the field. If you did some research you would find similar trucks on the roads. Further research might lead you to discover than your truck was produced by Chevrolet in 1976, thus dispelling rumors that it popped up by chance.

I did some research and found someone who claimed credit for creation... and who said He created it in six days.

This for me dispels human theories that creation "popped up" by purely naturalistic processes.

 

[just-want-peace]

Science is the making of observations based on things we see.

Precisely!!

Now, what part of creation have you or anybody else seen? Are there any writings from anyone who was there? (Other than God, of course!)
And how are these conditions replicated to prove the OE/evolution theories?

This just verifies my assertion that people are believing man over God on this subject!

If satan can get people to deny the beginnings, it's not too much to expect them to deny other parts of scripture to the point that God's Word is no longer relevant to "MODERN MAN"

 

[Charles Meadows]

Now, what part of creation have you or anybody else seen? Are there any writings from anyone who was there? (Other than God, of course!)
And how are these conditions replicated to prove the OE/evolution theories?

No one saw creation at all. And I will readily concede that neither an old earth nor evolution have been PROVED.

But we do have fossil records, carbon 14 datings suggesting very old age, and geologic phenomena suggesting evolutionary change in the environment.

There is no problem questioning these things or even saying, "sorry you have not convinced me."

But we cannot simply pretend that these things do not exist. That leads to a view that sees science as the antithesis of religious truth. And that becomes an unnecessary stumbling block for young believers in a world of increasing scientific knowledge.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Now, what part of creation have you or anybody else seen? Are there any writings from anyone who was there? (Other than God, of course!)
And how are these conditions replicated to prove the OE/evolution theories?
No one saw creation at all. And I will readily concede that neither an old earth nor evolution have been PROVED.

God saw creation.

But we do have fossil records, carbon 14 datings suggesting very old age, and geologic phenomena suggesting evolutionary change in the environment.

Chemical dating is performed based on a number of assumptions about natural history that may or may not be true.

The strongest evidence against this method of dating comes from the fact that when it gives a date different from the expectations allowed under the evolutionary model, those results are rejected.

 

[Scott J]

And that becomes an unnecessary stumbling block for young believers in a world of increasing scientific knowledge.

This is quite possibly the worst reason one could give for accepting or rejecting something as "true".

The Corinthians were guilty of trying to adapt the truth of God to the human wisdom around them. Paul dealt extensively with human wisdom as it relates to God's truth.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
While science cannot be honestly done without an assumption of naturalism,

Wrong. Science can be done honestly with an assumption of a creator, a cause outside of nature.

Criminal forensics is that type of science. It operates on the assumption that evidence does not arrive somewhere by natural forces.</font>[/QUOTE]While honest scientists don't need to subscribe to naturalism as a cosmological view, if they don't assume naturalism in their work, it effectively enters the realm of theological or philosophical.

Otherwise you would see scientific papers that say use of Drug X shows an 80% decrease in the incidence of Y cancer it appears to be effective in cancer treatment or a supernatural force is healing our test patients 80% more frequently than our control. Because we use naturalistic assumptions to determine that these drugs heal, does that mean God does not heal?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
While science cannot be honestly done without an assumption of naturalism,

Wrong. Science can be done honestly with an assumption of a creator, a cause outside of nature.

Criminal forensics is that type of science. It operates on the assumption that evidence does not arrive somewhere by natural forces.</font>[/QUOTE]While honest scientists don't need to subscribe to naturalism as a cosmological view, if they don't assume naturalism in their work, it effectively enters the realm of theological or philosophical. </font>[/QUOTE] If they assume naturalism, they have already entered the realm of philosophy.

The only thing that a scientist must do is seek the truth and the best explanation for a given subject. The minute they assume anything that might limit where the evidence takes them, they have ceased to operate as a scientist and begun to operate as a philosopher.

Otherwise you would see scientific papers that say use of Drug X shows an 80% decrease in the incidence of Y cancer it appears to be effective in cancer treatment or a supernatural force is healing our test patients 80% more frequently than our control.

No. Not at all. This is observed science governed by recognized and experimentally demonstrated laws and theories... and btw, the situation is not governed by naturalism. The drugs don't occur naturally, they are engineered.

Everything about your example assumes physical and chemical laws... but also intelligence.

Because we use naturalistic assumptions to determine that these drugs heal, does that mean God does not heal?

No. It means intelligence is a better explanation for the drug in question than a natural process.