The 'Theory' of Heliocentricity
--- christopher nesbitt wrote:
There are many flaws in science as nothing in science can be proved and there are many theories. Even gravity is not a fact but a theory and atomic theory as many thing in science that people believe to be true can not be proved, just like many things in Christians beliefs. Actually science and religion are very much alike as both are based upon a theory or belief. When science like religion has
> its surface pulled back there are many flaws (as sometimes they are called). As a Christian I love science because I find that many times scientist accidentally end up proving the Bible to be true. For example, in the science or archaeologist world it was believed that in Genesis 10:11 when a city of Nineveh was mentioned that we did not know of such a place and many skeptics of the Christian belief used this as one of many points to show the Bible is inaccurate or false. However, Nineveh was discovered and people had to swallow there statements and find new accusations to make. I feel that no matter how many things in the Bible are proven, people will find new arguments and pick up another type of rock to through and the castle. As Sandy said I believe Jesus could come back tomorrow and as the Christians believe in the Rapture of the Church and the Bible talks about this and how it is going to happen as it has been written in there for hundreds of years, but when it happens people will still say aliens must have done it, or the government had something to do with it, or many other explanations. However, if they looked in Revelation in the Bible it is written in there and has been for a very long time. I hope I didn't offend anyone and enjoy engaging in such discussions with everyone, were there is a mutual respect for everyone beliefs. Thank you.
I don't think you quite have your definitions straight -- It always dissapoints me when people are misseducated about scientific theory and acceptable proof.
A 'Theory' is posited when corroborating hypotheses and substantial falsifiable (testable) evidence is shown for any system in nature. This includes the 'Theory' of gravitational attraction, or the 'Theory' of heliocentricity. You are making the claim, if I have you at your spades, that these theories can never be proven by science. Unfortunately, you have misunderstood the usage of the term 'Theory' by the scientific community.
The term 'Theory' simply suggests that someone tested a hypothesis and came to some kind of conclusion. For instance, let's take the 'Theory' of Heliocentricity; or, the idea that the Sun is the center of the solar system.
Heliocentricity was popularized in western science by Copernicus and Bruno -- it was contrary to what the church and bible claim about the earth, and was thusly suppressed...Geodonno Bruno was burned alive for making this claim. Today, we all KNOW that the Sun is the center of our solar system, but we still referr to the 'Theory' of Heliocentricity.
Why do we scientific types continue calling it a theory?
The answer is quite simple. Even though we can photograph the sun at the center of our Solar system, and ALL OTHER FALSIFIABLE EVIDENCE seems to agree that the planets orbit the star, and even though different scientific disciplines agree (physics, math, geology, cosmology, biology, et cetera) that the sun is indeed the center of our solar system, the term 'Theory' is used to denote the LACK OF DOGMATIC THOUGHT in the world of science. Scientific 'Theory' is ALLWAYS OPEN TO NEW EVIDENCE, given that it is scientific in nature. Even today, if you could illustrate a proponderance of evidence (that is to say, enough evidence to throw away our current model of Heliocentricity), then science would vindicate you, and the Theory of Heliocentricity would be considered false.
That is the wonderful thing about the scientific process -- it is infallable, because it always is open to new evidence, even in cases where we are 99.9% Sure of something. Take your example of the city of Ninevah -- I doubt very much that anyone in the scientific community had to 'swallow their pride' and admit that some ancient city actually existed; that's not how science works. No rationally-minded person would make a claim that something definately doesn't exist -- that stance is too rigid, and unscientific.
Let's apply the process of theorizing to a religion -- I will play it safe and use Scientology (it has the word 'science' right there in the name; it must be true!)
Scientologists claim that an evil inter-galactic alien named Zenu came to earth in his space-ship millions of years ago, and implanted the 'souls' of alien beings into the bodies of humans.
This is all well and good for fiction, but I require some kind of evidence to support this 'Theory'.
To call such a claim a 'Theory' on the order of gravitational attraction or string theory is insulting and missleading to the people.
The concept that everything experienced in percieved reality is false is known as Solipsism -- you are dagerously close to this philosophical position if you deny the proofs that do exist for science's theories.
In short, belief and science aren't 'in the same ballpark'; they aren't even the same sport. Science requires testable evidence, and religious belief does not. Science is not dogmatic, religion is. Science relies on reason and probability, religion relies on faith. Faith is belief without proof, Knowledge is belief in light of proof.
The faithful have been attempting this bait-and-switch tactic for centuries. There is a list of religious con artists a mile long (I am looking at you, Joseph Smith), and because people don't understand the scientific process, they get taken, and new 'religions' form. In the last ten years, some abomination of faith called 'intelligent design' has cropped up amongst the least educated in this country. Every day, people buy in to this pile that is being peddled by crooks (looking at you, Micheal Behe and 'Dr.' Dino...) to further their agenda -- the worst part is, that it masquerades as real science, and people are duped by it. THERE IS NOT ONE REAL SCIENTIST DOING ANY 'RESEARCH' INTO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. It is a joke in the scientific community -- because it is impossible? No -- as I said, science is not dogmatic. The MAIN (of many) problem with the 'theory' of intelligent design is that it is based on faulty logic. Intelligent design never made it to the laboratory, because it never passed Logic. I suggest 'The Blind Watchmaker' for further reading, or George Smith's 'Atheism; the Case Against God'.
Logos Invictus, Lux Lumina.
--Louis Repucci, the Amicable Atheist.