[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cs lewis

In a message dated 6/22/2001 7:59:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
dasmith at rotse2_physics.lsa.umich.edu writes:


Absolutely not.  No way, no how, and no where.  Science is
evidence-driven.  If you find evidence that contradicts your
hypothesis, you change or discard your hypothesis.  So-called
"creation science" is hypothesis-driven.  If they find contradictory
evidence, they ignore the evidence.  Actually, in practical terms,
they *don't* find contradictory evidence.  They are still presenting
"evidence" that has been disproven for over thirty years.

And before anyone accuses me of bias, I am a professional
astrophysicist who is also a Christian.  I can't stand
creation science.  

Sorry, but this hit a nerve, since it affects two integral parts
of my identity: my faith and my profession.


I can't believe I'm reading such hypocrisy from a scientist who so blatantly
ignores the scientific method.  You must first have a hypothesis to first be
able to test it and gather "evidence", right?  So all science, including
"creation science" must adopt these procedures to appropriately present their
data to the "opposition".  

I'm confused why such people feel the need to "prove" something that is by
definition based solely on faith!  So why the futile search?  Can someone
please explain this to me.  Is this some form of proselytising to the
scientific/intellectual masses?  In that case, do we forget Thomas Dolby?  
They're blinded by science!!!  No way will science prove/disprove the
existence of God. . . no tangible evidence in order to gather data.  Thank
God for that. . . it preserves the whole script, "by grace you have been
SAVED BY FAITH!!!!!!"

Which brings me to a funny story.  In college, at good ole University of
Iowa, all Biology majors had to take Evolution.  Well, Mr. Evolution, Dr.
Roger Milkman, really didn't like me much, cuz I embodied all that he had
lived his whole life to denounce.  He knew that I transferred from a
Christian College and had taken Genetics there.  Which to him is the
"cardinal sin" of science. . . How can one actually fully understand the
tenets of Genetics without first espousing the "facts" of evolution, the
basis for Genetics.  Who the Hell does he think he is; Watson or Crick?  
Little did he know, all my professors at Olivet Nazarene did espouse
evolution, and were Christians.  As for me, I really don't buy into the whole
big bang thing or speciation.  I do think that adaptation is good science,
for instance, the Andean people had adapted to their environment by "growing"
enlarged rib cages to handle their labored breathing to sustain their
incresed oxygen needs.

One more thing, Don, what's the story in astrophysics these days, are the
galaxies converging or separating?  Hasn't this theory been changed too many
times.  Which leads me to my next point, whatever is currently widely
accepted in science is never safe from criticism.  For instance, in biology,
say it takes several enzymes to drive a cascade of events to yield a hormone.
 The scientist that identifies them first, maps them and publishes these as
fact.  Well, some little punk grad student under some faultering professor at
Podunk U. in Smalltown USA, comes along two years later and discovers that
there are additional enzymes in this cascade facilitated by additional
coenzymes and vitamins.  Well, what was once widely accepted as truth 2 years
earlier has just been uprooted by some annoying geek who refused to take this
as the final answer.  Which finally brings me to the point I learned some
years ago in school: be wary to accept theories as scientific law, you WILL
get burned.  The THEORY of evolution or the LAWS of Thermodynamics, Gravity,
etc.

Thanks, Mike
Follow-Ups: