Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
It seems ironic to me that organizations of science want to claim that theres no debate about how the world came to be. There may be significant evidence to suggest that Darwinian Evolution explains this, but I'm seeing it as sort of an arbitrary cutoff since evolution doesn't exactly hold up to the Scientific Method either.
It is not observable, testable, nor falsifiable. Which in no way means that it's wrong. Just that while maintaining the scientific method is important, it's helpless to help us explain why the world was created. Thus it's suspended regarding reasoning to why things are the way they are.
But there in lies the question: if science itself is in sufficient to turn the Theory of Evolution into the Law of Evolution, doesn't it seem a bit self-righteous for academics to declare the debate to be over? What about the non-Creationists who reject Big Bang on the premise of question of insufficient evidence, such as the Red Shift movement? What keeps them from getting a platform to explain why they hold majorty opinion to be wrong?
Once it becomes heresy to debate scientific theory, does science really have meaning anymore? I don't have the answer to this question, but I suspect it's 'no'. Science can only be good science as long as people are allowed to debate the facts. Once a debate is declared to be dormant, it's no longer science that is being taught, I think.
I feel like this is a bigger issue than we all realize.
|
if you have proof, the whole point of the scientific method is that you can question results if you can show they may (or are) wrong in part or in whole.
seriously, could i not discriminate against a job to teach mathematics because the interviewee believes that 1 + 1 = 3?
the proof of one is MUCH MUCH greater than the proof for the other, so science uses the best model available until something better comes along.