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!

[QED]

I am consistent.

Lets' see,

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.

Can you give me an example of a repeatable experiment that demonstrates a supernatural aspect to the world? Is there any religious phenomena (e.g. miracle or prayer) that can be repeatedly demonstrated?

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.

Yet high temperature physics reveals hitherto unknown behaviours that explain previously unknown mechanisms. Elementary deduction presents a universe at high temperature in the past, is this the sort of deduction that you don't trust? I'd be suspicious of your motives if so.

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.

Skepticism is the life-blood of the scientific approach. But the skeptic has to be applying scientific methodology in his criticism. If you agree that natural law is capable of producing the appearance of design (and it's as well that you do given the ability of technology to be able to repeatedly demonstrate working natural design generators) then I would like to know how you arrive at the conclusion that it's scope must necessarily be limited to the extent that it could not have developed all the life around us. Simply declaring your incredulity won't persuade me that it's not possible. I need to understand some principle that makes natural design through natural selection break down and fail at some level of complexity. This wouldn't be required if we knew it could never get off the ground -- but we've already agreed that it can by virtue of repeatable demonstrations of its fundamental principles working to create apparent design.

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.

But there's additional data suggesting that the universe did it: There's this long period (getting on for a quarter the age of the universe let alone the planet Earth!) where nothing more than bacteria were present. These paved the way for more complex forms of life through billions of years of patient photosynthesis. God was certainly waiting around a fair time for all this to happen! Then there's the exponential rises in diversity/complexity that marks each boundary, like developmental milestones in Earths natural history. There's no evidence of a single "mighty fiat" that's supposed by theologians, quite the opposite -- the development of life on this planet is a stop-start affair with only one common thread -- a tenacious hold on existence through supreme adaptability.

If we interpret what we see in the various eras of natural history as God launching waves of different kinds of animal by hand then I would argue that we see a novice becoming more proficient as time goes on. There is a clear trend in the early fossil record of great initial diversity leading to subsequent consolidation into fewer phyla. What's behind these false starts if they are all the work of some infinite mind?

[seventil]

Not to try to hijack the thread, but I feel that another Christian needed to answer the OP first questions.

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

I define it just as a non-Christian would, I hope. I'll use Wiki's definition, I find it to my liking:

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to rules of reasoning.

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

Wiki again with a very good definition of theory:

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

As for the difference, quickly, a hypothesis is a "suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal" -- and a theory is (see above). A hypothesis is a explanation or a reason, a theory is something that (should) be capable of testing through experimentation.

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?

Of course.

Why do I accept it? Because I'm a astronomy and physics nut, plus a Sci-Fi lover, so I guess that could be my second religion? Heh... on a serious note, the science behind this seems to me: 1. reasonable - 2. likely/probable and last and most important 3. desirable for how we think our universe should work.

I understand it reasonably well, yes.

It matters to me on a personal interest level, but this idea has no affect on my faith or any other part of my life.

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?

I do accept that, I think we can see them (not see as in "visable" but see as in scientifically) -- although that's not the point.

Why? Atomic and quantum theories are sound and logical.

I do, and I dislike this method of trying to eventually "prove a point" or something. Let's get to the juicy stuff.

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?

I do accept global warming, however, I am failed to be convinced that these will be catostrophic.

I understand the science behind these reasonably well, yes.

Not that my finger is on the "scientific community pulse" at the moment, but I believe it is a contraversial topic, yes.

Do you accept evolution as a verifiable scientific fact?

Most of it, yes. More on that below.

Why?

I feel that recently scientific progress in this field is too biased toward disproving religion than focusing on true science.

The only real part of evolutionary theory I don't believe is "verifiable scientific fact" is involving humans. In particular, I believe that primate and homosapien evolution is poorly explained and lacks good evidence to be considered "scientific fact". Not to tangent yet, but we can discuss this more in detail if you wish.

As for the rest of evoultionary theory: of course. I've never seen why it's controversial with Christianity. Evolutionary theory (although not falliable by any means) is a good explination of HOW the Creation works. It's brilliant. Not the theory, but the Creation. That we can now understand it, even at a small level, is a forward step for humanity.

That being said, I feel that most of evolutionary theory (if not all) is completely compatable with Christianity. Your mileage varies here usually depending on how fundamentalist you are, usually.

Keep in mind evolutionary theory isn't an "end all, tell all" explanation of how everything works. Newton had a pretty idea with the whole gravity thing: but applying gravitational physics in astronomy didn't work out very well. What will be the theory of relativity to the theory of evolution? Who knows.

Do you understand the science behind evolution?

I hope so.

Do you understand the science behind evolution better than you understand the science in the topics listed above?

I have a good understanding of the science behind evolution, yes - some areas stronger than others, of course. Physics and geology would be a bit stronger than the biological stuff, maybe.

Is the scientific community split on this issue?

I think the community is fragmented on the theory of evolution, not split. Evolutionary theory is renowned for being religiously controversial, and being that many scientists are religious, it is an important matter for a lot of them. On the other end of the spectrum, too many scientists will do anything that is possible to vindicate this theory as replacing or destroying a faith based religion. I think that creates tension in the community.

edit: relized I didn't answer your question at all, sorry.

I think the scientific community, for the most part, accepts evolutionary theory as theory, yes.

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

Really? And me I just thought it was a bunch of kids in a garage somewhere smoking weed and coming up with this stuff. (Yes, I did)

I am truly interested in your answers!

Looking forward to your replies. Sorry I couldn't be more fundy for you, I know they are fun to play with.