For example, the electron is too small to be observed directly, but the assumption that electrons exist allows correct prediction of the operation of electronic devices, etc. Predictions and observations are often indirect, as scientific theories often involve things that are microscopic, or far away in space or time. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity then superceded and subsumed it. For example, Newton’s theory of motion was believed correct until it failed at high velocities and in strong gravitational fields. Theories may change through time, even well-accepted ones. Hypotheses that have been confirmed are used to formulate a theory, which is a higher-level explanation. The observation is made, and hypotheses making incorrect predictions abandoned or modified. Then a critical test case is chosen where each hypothesis predicts a different observation. Scientists approach a problem by first inventing a number of speculative hypotheses. " Scientific Decisions It is helpful to look at some examples of why the scientific decision-making process has led scientists to accept evolution rather than "scientific creationism." The arguments asserted by creationists are not based on new scientific evidence. "The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories that have been before the scientific community for decades. Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and try to find scientific support for it." "The creationists’ methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions. The concepts of 4(a) are the literal Fundamentalists’ view of Genesis." "The evidence establishes that the definition of `creation science´ contained in 4(a) has as its unmentioned reference the first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis. Overton wrote (January 5, 1982): "It was simply and purely an effort to introduce the Biblical version of creation into the public school curricula." In declaring the Arkansas law Unconstitutional, Judge William R. In an earlier trial, the Arkansas bishops or principal officials of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic, African Methodist Episcopal, and Presbyterian Churches, the American Jewish Congress, and many other clergy and religious groups sued Arkansas to prevent the teaching of "scientific creationism" because such teaching promoted specific fundamentalist doctrines in the schools. In 1986, 72 Nobel laureates and 23 scientific societies representing tens of thousands of working scientists submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court to oppose teaching Biblical literalism as science. Duane Gish and others in the Institute for Creation Research seriously distorts both science and Christianity, and is opposed by leaders of both. The ultra-literal fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis of the "scientific creationism" espoused by Dr.
Divine intervention cannot be used to justify a step in solving an algebra problem, but this does not make algebra atheistic. Mainstream Christianity finds it perfectly acceptable that scientific studies of origins should explain creation with the natural laws that God may use as "instruments in his works." These explanations must be mechanistic, but this does not imply atheism. Where natural causes are at hand God uses them as instruments in his works, but I do not think them sufficient for ye creation. he described realities in a language artificially adapted to ye sense of ye vulgar. Many scientists hold strong religious beliefs, but read the Genesis account of creation as did Isaac Newton in his 1681 letter to Thomas Burnett: As to Moses. Bakken It is not commonly known that Charles Darwin intended to become a clergyman when he studied at Cambridge, or that the Church of England honored him with burial in Westminster Abbey near Isaac Newton.
0 kommentar(er)
