The scientific method

[Cmass]

Can Christians here describe the Scientific Method?
What is it?
How does it work?

Can you define a "theory"?
What is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Do you accept that scientists have discovered other planets in other solar systems many light years away?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind how they are presumably detected?
Does it matter to you?

Do you accept that there are electrons, neutrons, protons, photons and other tiny things that you cannot see?
Why?
Do you understand the science of how these things are detected, manipulated as well as how theories on their behavior are derived?

Do you accept that human-induced global warming is occurring?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind conclusions regarding global warming?
Is the scientific community split on this issue?

Do you accept evolution as a verifiable scientific fact?
Why?
Do you understand the science behind evolution?
Do you understand the science behind evolution better than you understand the science in the topics listed above?
Is the scientific community split on this issue?

Did you know that all the topics listed above involve use of the Scientific Method in order to draw conclusions?

I am truly interested in your answers!

[jjg]

I've seen the topic. If anything all it proves is intelligent design (human thought) invented something. It's a self-defeating argument.

You could argue the same ting with nature and matter.

[QED]

I've seen the topic. If anything all it proves is intelligent design (human thought) invented something. It's a self-defeating argument.

You could argue the same ting with nature and matter.

You evidently misunderstand the argument. It does not address what, if anything, invented nature and matter. It merely concludes that there is an independent force within natural logic for natural design. If you're so sure that this is all a trivial matter to which you possess all the answers then please do us the courtesy of explaining it in the topic I started for that very purpose. I would most welcome the opportunity to debate it with you in the proper place.

[jjg]

To be fair, I'll look it over again, but we probably think along the same path.

[Cmass]

Achilles said: The Christians who have issues with the evidence presented are usually Christians who believe in "THE GOD of GAPS". Whenever a gap is explained, God would then become smaller.

This is very well put and insightful Achilles!

Achilles said: The creation of the universe is where I think this is the most prominent. We are developing a good idea of what could have occurred. The more we figure out the more it fits with a master plan.

Actually, the more we "figure out", the more bizarre it gets and the less it looks like any kind of master plan.

So two criteria I use to decide if I will accept a scientific theory are: If it has to do with how things are, not how they began, and if it is morally neutral, that is, it is not related to the question of God's existence. Thus I am willing to accept atomic theory, but not evolution.

This explains a lot. Is this how most Christian acquaintances and friends of yours decide whether or not to accept a scientific theory?

If it has to do with how things are, not how they began,

So, any science that has to do with explanations of past events is out? Anthropology? Geology? etc....

morally neutral, that is, it is not related to the question of God's existence.

"Morally neutral"? So if I question God's existence I am not morally neutral?
If a scientists works with a hypothesis offered by a Christian that explains a planetary flood and comes to the conclusion there indeed was such a flood, then is he morally neutral?
What if he concluded no such flood could have occurred, then is he morally neutral?
* What you are saying goes back to my original OP: You pick and choose your science based primarily on whether or not it threatens your belief system.

[MrWhy]

A hypothesis is as I said before, a testable idea.

Most definitions of "hypothesis" do not mention that one needs to be testable. "A tentative idea" is often used. Can we have some opinions on this? Is "speculation and conjecture" of lower quality than hypothesis?

[Cmass]

Is "speculation and conjecture" of lower quality than hypothesis?

Yes. A conjecture is a statement for which someone thinks
that there is evidence that the statement is true. The main thing about
a conjecture is that there is no proof.
The word "hypothesis" has two meanings. The first is the "if" part of
a theorem and the conclusion is the "then" part.

[MrWhy]

Is "speculation and conjecture" of lower quality than hypothesis?

Yes. A conjecture is a statement for which someone thinks
that there is evidence that the statement is true. The main thing about
a conjecture is that there is no proof.
The word "hypothesis" has two meanings. The first is the "if" part of
a theorem and the conclusion is the "then" part.

Does a hypothesis have to be testable?

[QED]

Does a hypothesis have to be testable?

That all depends on whether or not people should be expected to accept it as an explanation.

[author@ptgbook.org]

The study of particle physics has more to do with how things began than Evolutionary Theory. The standard model of the universe describes how the elementary particles were created in the first few seconds of the Big Bang and moving on from that period how dying stars generated all the naturally occurring elements in the Periodic Table.

I am consistent. To the extent that science speculates how particles came to be, I do not trust their theories about how particles originally came into existence either. I only trust what can be verified by repeatable experiment. Origins of things that have occurred in the past are too speculative for me. I don't say that theories about how particles came into existence in a big bang are wrong, but that they are speculative. There is no way to know they actually came into existence that way or some other way.

What objective evidence? There is none. People proffer Nostradamus, the bible code etc. as evidence of foresight- all of which has been found wanting. The problem of course is your belief system and how you interpret the Bible based on your world view.

There are Bible prophecies that have been fulfilled. I have found them. You can too. But you won't find them because you won't look. You won't look because you already made up your mind they don't exist. In the end, belief in evolution or creation is a choice. I think you've made yours.

I wonder why you would draw a line in what seems to me to be a highly arbitrary position by imagining that the universe is incapable of doing the job on its own. I say this because I have seen ample evidence that the laws themselves provide a principle that is capable of generating no end of apparent design. In particular, I'm thinking of a practical application called evolvable hardware as implemented by a well-respected US agency.

I don't assume that the universe is incapable of doing the job on its own. You are correct in saying that natural law can produce a great deal that can look like "design". I don't even assume that evolution would definitely be impossible, although I tend to be skeptical that it could produce the vast variety and advanced development we see in life today. My point is that I am unwilling to accept the position of science that evolution definitely did happen, that all of life definitely came into existence through natural law only. Even if the universe were capable of doing the job, that doesn't mean the universe did the job. God could have created life without waiting for the universe to do it. And I believe that He did.

Is this how most Christian acquaintances and friends of yours decide whether or not to accept a scientific theory?

I have no idea. I can only speak for myself.

So if I question God's existence I am not morally neutral? If a scientists works with a hypothesis offered by a Christian that explains a planetary flood and comes to the conclusion there indeed was such a flood, then is he morally neutral? What if he concluded no such flood could have occurred, then is he morally neutral? What you are saying goes back to my original OP: You pick and choose your science based primarily on whether or not it threatens your belief system.

My point is, a scientist has no moral bias that would stop him from being objective about determining the characteristics of protons and neutrons, or the composition of a nucleus of an atom, or the laws governing how electron shells are formed. It won't affect one way or another whether he feels free to sleep with his neighbor's wife. And since he has no such bias, I am more likely to trust his conclusions even if I lack the opportunity to check the evidence myself. But the whole matter of evolution is directly connected to whether God exists and whether the Bible has authority. The connection is this: If God does not exist, if there is no God that created life, then evolution MUST be true. I know of no third explanation. And scientists, any man or woman, might definitely be biased against the idea that God exists if the existence of God might affect how they live their personal lives. And that bias can cause them to want to believe in evolution, because that is the only way to explain life without God. And I have to take that bias into consideration in deciding if I will trust scientists on the evolution issue, just as I would take the bias of a used car salesmen into consideration regarding anything he might tell me about a car he wants to sell me.

[Cathar1950]

The connection is this: If God does not exist, if there is no God that created life, then evolution MUST be true. I know of no third explanation. And scientists, any man or woman, might definitely be biased against the idea that God exists if the existence of God might affect how they live their personal lives. And that bias can cause them to want to believe in evolution, because that is the only way to explain life without God. And I have to take that bias into consideration in deciding if I will trust scientists on the evolution issue, just as I would take the bias of a used car salesmen into consideration regarding anything he might tell me about a car he wants to sell me.

So as long as they have the bias of believing in God you will buy any hunk of junk the used car salesman will sell you?
So some one might be biased because he wants to live his life the way he wants to and not the way you do and they believe in evolution because they don't want to believe in God? What about Christians or those that believe in God and also evolution? Why do you have to take your imaginary bias about another in to consideration?