Dear NosyNed,
I guess my main points so far are:
1) Science {The systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.} must have at its foundation Fact and Truth. {As defined below}
2) There are Absolute truths {Facts if you will}. We must know, and use some of these to seek out the knowledge we wish to find in science.
3) To have faith {1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 4a.Belief and trust in God. (Webster’s II, New College Dictionary,1999)} does not necessitate a lack of proof. {I.E. Just because you are asked to believe something (anything) it does not automatically make it, what your are asked to believe in, un-provable}
There are those who seem to think that science has nothing to do with fact/truth; I say Fact/Truth are the vary foundation of science.
There are those who say that faith is the vary opposite of fact; I say the facts will do you no good if you do not believe in them.
There are those who say that absolutes do not exist; I say with out absolutes, this universe would not exist.
Posted previously
Science does not deal in truth!?
According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary {third Edition, 1997} Truth is defined as follows:
2 that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3 an established or verified fact, principle, ect.
I find, in the same dictionary, these words and their definitions.
Fact: 2 a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3 the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy]
Science: 1 orig., the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.
Science does not exist if there are no immutable facts. A fact is what is true.
A few example:
Arithmetic is used in all fields of research, so I will use an example from there.
1 + 1 = 2
If this were not a fact {I.E. True all the time, for all people, in all situation} Then your vary bases for research in erroneous. One could add to the equation, or change it in some way, but, the truth of the mater is that, one plus one will always equal two.
Try this one:
There is a law, we call it the law of gravity, that says something like ‘all mater in the universe exhibits a gravitational field’. These fields attract each other. Therefore, an object with a small gravitational field will be drawn to an object with a larger gravitational field.
With this law in mind, I can say, with certainty that whatever you throw up in to the air will eventually come down. Now you may say, Ya, but there are exceptions to that rule. Well, not to put to fine a point on it, but, no, there aren’t.
You say, but wait, how about the space shuttle, or microscopic items that escape the Earth’s gravitational pull?
If you said this, or something like it, please forgive me, but these are not exceptions, they are add-ons.
For example the Space Shuttle, It does not deify gravity, it simply adds more force pushing away from the Earth than the force generated by the Earth herself. Thus the original force, generated by the Earth, is still in effect, it is simply overpowered by the force of the rocket engines. Again, adding something to the equation, does not negate the original equation, it merely modifies it.
Here is something else to think about. If there were no absolutes, {say for instance no absolute truths} then there would be no Science, or at least what we call Science today.
Why? Because, if a chemist mixes together the exact same amount of exactly the same chemicals, in exactly the same order, under the exact same conditions five time and gets different outcomes each time, or half the time, there would be no way to systematically derive knowledge from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.
Simply put, for us to deny real truth is to deny real science. For truth ‘3’ is the vary foundation of science ‘2’.
I, as of yet, have not posted this. So, I may as well post it now.
Can we be absolutely sure, there are no absolutes??
Can we be absolutely sure, that, there are no absolutes? And, if we can, Is that not in it’s self an absolute? Therefore, belying the idea that there are not absolutes.
Also, If we cannot be absolutely sure, there are no absolutes than, is it not, at least, possible that there are?
The reason I ask this question is that there seams to be an endless debate over what it true and what is not true, and the only measuring stick seams to be the beliefs/Opinions of the person speaking/writing.
I have actually had people say, Well, that just not so and then turn around and say the same thing I said, in different word, and then claim that what thy just said/wrote proves that I’m wrong.
First, a few definitions, so we can all work from the same page, sort a speak:
Absolute: 3a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions: Unconditional 6 Not to be doubted: Positive (Webster’s II, New College Dictionary,1999) {I.E. True all the time, for all people, in all situation}
Fact: 2a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy] (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997
Truth: 2that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3an established or verified fact, principle, ect. (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997)
If, in fact, there are not absolutes, then, as far as I understand it, there is only opinion. Therefore my opinion is no more, and no less, valid then anyone else’s. So, that would mean then, if someone wanted to say, The Earth is flat that opinion would be no less valid then if someone else said, the Earth is round. Only if there are absolutes can someone say No, your both wrong, the Earth is a sphere.
The idea that there are no absolutes, {No absolute truths, no absolute facts} seams to be, to me, circular logic. {I.E. If there were no absolutes, then that in it’s self would be an absolute, and so on.}
Now, if there are, in fact, absolutes {which is the only logical conclusion I can come to} then it should not be to hard to define a few of them.
Am I making any cense at all? Or, am I over thinking this?
If you think, as I do, that there are absolutes, then please, give us a few examples, and tell us why these should be considered absolute.
If, on the other hand, you think that you can show that there are no absolutes, then I invite you to try to prove it.
As to why I am posting this here, where Evolution and Creation are being discussed.
I post this here because, if there are absolutes {I.E. things that are true all the time, for all people, in all situation} you can correctly say one {Creation or Evolution} is true [2,3] and the other is not. But, on the other hand, if there are no absolutes then both are of equal value {I.E. nether is wrong, and, for that matter, nether is right}.
As I see it, you must first resolve the issue of absolutes, before you can make a decision on which one {Creation or Evolution} is correct.
Which, by the way, is the first step in the scientific method:
As I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this:
1) Correctly identify the frame of Reference.
2) Determine the initial conditions.
3) Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where.
4) Note the final conditions.
5) Form an hypothesis.
6) Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations.
John3: 16, 17
™ Version 4.2