The definition of science: What should it be?

I think if you reread your opening post in this thread you'll see that explaining natural selection and whether it requires DNA is an entirely different subject. Your opening post raises questions about methodological naturalism and concludes with the question: My own answer is that science is just a method for figuring out how the universe works. It belongs to the practical, rather than the spiritual, realm of life. Science helps us learn about the material universe, while religion gives us insight into the spiritual.Questions arise about the definition of science in the creation/evolution debate because creationists believe science is overstepping its bounds by rendering opinions on the spiritual realm. Scientists counter by pointing out that stars and galaxies and mountains and oceans and plants and animals are all part of the material, not spiritual, universe.The problem creationists have with science is, at its foundation, due to their belief that the Bible, a spiritual book, makes accurate claims about the material universe. They therefore object to the findings of science on two different grounds. One is that science is too limited and should take into account the spiritual evidence of the Bible, which seems to be the direction you are going. The other is that there are areas that science should not delve into, such as biological origins.--Percy

Tying into the topic... Can science that is limited to natural causes counter this observation, or must we invoke interference by intelligence?

An in depth discussion of this quote would be off topic as has been mentioned, but you might want to create a seperate topic about this quote in the Origins of Life forum. Well this begs the question "Is intelligence natural?" Does intelligence have to be supernatural? I consider myself to be perfectly natural, and I also consider myself to have at least some intelligence.However "intelligence" doesn't lend itself well to being used as an explanation of observed phenomena. It isn't predictable in any way shape or form. For something to be good science (or even science at all) it has to make predictions. It isn't enough to just be a sufficient explanation of current observations.What predictions can be made about intelligence (natural or supernatural in origin)? Can you say "Intelligence would produce this result, but not that result"?

Who needs science when simple logic can do the trick?Imperfect replication in an environment of limited resources must be subject to selection, no matter what the nature of the replicator in question is. Imperfect replication means that descendants are not equal. If a difference between replicators affects the chances of a successful replication for either of them with respect to the other, then, statistically, the more successful should outperform the less so in the long run.You don't need DNA for it to work like that: any precursor of DNA, even any other molecule capable of replication in some way, is subject to selection, as long as the replication is not always perfect, and the environment doesn't provide enough resources for the needs of each and every replication attempt. Off-topic note for Happy Atheist (and others):

​

"Begging the question" is a specific fallacy whereby that which is to be proven is assumed in the premises of the proof. An example can be found here:

​

quote:

---

Begging the Question (petitio principii)

​

Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises offered in its own support. Although this often happens in an implicit or disguised fashion, an explicit version would look like this:

​

* All dogs are mammals.
* All mammals have hair.
* Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young.
* But all animals that bear live young are mammals.
* Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

​

Unlike the other fallacies we've considered, begging the question involves an argument (or chain of arguments) that is formally valid: if its premises (including the first) are true, then the conclusion must be true. The problem is that this valid argument doesn't really provide support for the truth its conclusion; we can't use it unless we have already granted that.

---

​

You use "begging the question" in a sort of colloquial way, expressing the idea that a certain line of reasoning raises other questions to be pondered. That's not how it's supposed to be used. I just thought I'd mention it. (By the way, you're not the only one who makes this mistake, I've seen others do it as well.)

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

You don't have an observation, you have an incorrect assertion. That "you need DNA to have natural selection" is wrong. As I already wrote you in Message 85 over at the Evolution Logic thread: In other words, natural selection works on anything, both organic and inorganic. It would work on inorganic chemical predecessors to DNA, and on organic predecessors to DNA, and on RNA, and on DNA.You're actually just raising again a point you already raised, namely something Steven Meyer said. You quoted him in Message 72 saying, "You can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing your trying to explain." As I told you at the time, he obviously doesn't know what natural selection is.Another possibility is that he knows exactly what natural selection is, but he also understands that his intended audience (people unfamiliar with science in general and biology in particular) does not have any idea what natural selection is, and so he can say whatever he believes will sound convincing. And then people like you read it and march into forums like this one repeating what Steven Meyer said, only to have to later concede you have no answers to the rebuttals, though you're certain you're right just the same.Let me ask you this: if you're right, why are people like Steven Meyer misleading you in order to help you believe you're right. If you're right, wouldn't an accurate and correct answer serve much better? If the only answers being made available to you by your side turn out to be suspect, shouldn't that raise questions in your mind about the validity of your position? And do you really believe God cares whether you accept evolution or not? "Turn him back, Saint Peter. Though he led a good and exemplary life filled with kindness and charity, he accepted evolution."This isn't the proper thread to straighten out the misunderstanding about natural selection that your reading of Steven Meyer is causing because it doesn't bear at all upon the definition of science. Your opening post questioned methodological naturalism, and the answer is as I've already stated: science is just a method for figuring out how the universe works. It belongs to the practical, rather than the spiritual, realm of life. Science helps us learn about the material universe, while religion gives us insight into the spiritual.--Percy

From message 85 evolution and logic thread... I supposed...And you respondedOk Percy, I think I grasp your point now... And I cannot deny it! That is... that there may be another explanation other than a designer.Your quite correct! And I hope you find it. But for the mean time, it is called faith. And I don't say that as a derogatory remark. We all have faith in something.We are all making predictions. some of us are predicting things that we will only know for sure on the other side... or not! I mean, perhaps after this life, we're just dead! Whatever the case is, it is absolute!None of us can prove to the other a thing. Even if it is true that I have met and seen God, it is such a personal experience, that it is admittedly not proof in the scientific sense.Neither is theory or the hope for one...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

You wrote this in the context of the origin of life: Using science to figure out how the universe works has nothing to do with religious faith. When someone finally figured out what makes a rainbow, he wasn't denying God and finding faith in science. He was just figuring out how light refracts off tiny rain drops.Figuring out how reproduction, mutation and natural selection work and then projecting that back in time to see how the first life might have come about also has nothing to do with religious faith. The majority of people who accept evolution, including myself, believe in God. Sure, many who accept evolution are atheists, but they're far outnumbered by theists who accept evolution and don't see it as playing any role in religious faith.The reason there's a controversy is because creationists believe the Bible contains accurate information about the origin of the universe and of life. It doesn't. Wherever we came from, it's a far more complex tale then anything related in Genesis.--Percy

Percy, do you believe that reality (i.e. 'the truth') is absolute?

I believe you're seeking a way to package religious beliefs in a scientifically acceptable manner. The requirements of science are that theories are supported by evidence, but all theory is tentative. Tentativity is a key quality of science. Nothing is ever assumed to be 100% true in science. And theories have to be falsifiable.If you're looking for something absolute, don't look to science. That's also a good reason why you don't want to claim Genesis is science, since science isn't absolute and isn't the truth, while you probably believe Genesis is both.--Percy

I was far too quick to judge you Percy. That mistake caused me an inability to hear you. I now think we understand each other.You are more honest than I thought... Perhaps I was also projecting the qualities of 'others' in this forum onto you. My apologies...I never actually conveyed it in the way you described above, but it says what I was thinking better than I have been able to communicate. I would only make one correction; I do think Genesis is the truth, and I think that that is what science should be. However, I concede that science is not truth.I find it interesting that all assumptions act (even if they are tentative) as fact (i.e. truth) or in other words, absolute fact!Maybe it is not called Methodological Naturalism in the strict sense that Steven Meyer stated and that I adopted. But you sir, have stated the exact point I was trying to make (as well as Steven Meyer), and said it better!I think there are a few here that will be dissapointed that you acknowledge that science is not truth. I for one applaud your honesty, and highly reccommend you view 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' for yourself.I know that no-one in this forum (including yourself) who has rejected Meyers work has seen it, because if they had, they would not have asked for the references as they did. Instead they would have immediately know the source.Perhaps you will still hold the positions you do after viewing, but I find the philosophy that it contains to be flawless. That logical consistancy (a critical truth test) is very revealing when looking at the evidence which can admittedly be interpreted in many different ways.In addition, the biologists interviewed, such as Dean Kenyon (Biology professor S.F. State Emeritus), explain very matter-of-factly what the difficulties are for evolution. And as he says, 'Intelligent design was a far more intellectually satisfying argument when faced with the multiple difficulties confronting chemical evolution. And that is a staggerring analysis since Kenyon was the lead author of 'Biochemical Predestination' in 1969In closing, interpretations mean nothing because ultimately, reality is absolute! What counts is when a coherent philosophy, coheres with the evidence... then you have something dynamic and compelling in the highest degree!RobEdited by Rob, : No reason given.

No true scientist will find it disappointing that science is not a "truth", in that anything in science can be absolute. However, when you say: The science theories are based on the facts we see around us. Fact, there is a huge variety of life on earth. Fact, this life changes. Theory--evolution explains these facts.Fact, a more dense mass attracts less dense objects.
Theory--newtonian gravity explains why these facts are. However, theory of general relativity does a better job, and is current gravity theory. It soon may be string or M, but I'm no physicist, so ask them.While the facts may not change (but some do, like the age of earth--it was once a fact that it was no more than 12000 yrs, now it is a fact that it's roughly 4.5 by old.), theories can and do.These theories are also not assumptions--well, not the scientific ones at any rate.ABE: I can't type. It should be "not a truth", not "a truth" in the first sentence.Edited by kuresu, : I can't type

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Anyone who came here claiming science represented truth would find himself the recipient of many rebuttals. About the closest anyone here comes to this is saying that science seeks truth but understands that it is unachievable. My own definition is that science is just a method for gradually teasing out of reality how the world works.The reason for tentativity is human fallibility, both intellectual and perceptual. People are not perfect, and so both our ideas and our perceptions can be wrong. Science is not truth, but whatever the majority of scientists believe at any given time. Science is a very human activity that seeks consensus about the way the universe works by making observations, formulating theories that explain the observations, and then checking the predictions made by the theories.In other words, science is an activity of continual change, and also, hopefully, of growth. We hope that our understanding continually improves. We hope we have more of it right today than yesterday, and more tomorrow than today. This changing and improving nature of science is another reason for tentativity. If yesterday's theory were unchanging and absolute truth, then what would be the point of learning more if we couldn't change the theory?The reason creationists have a problem with science is because its theories conflict with their interpretation of Genesis, which they hold literally inerrant. Because science is based upon evidence while creationism is based upon revelation, creationist views on scientific matters cannot compete with science. So what creationism has done is engaged in a campaign to convince people that there is a controversy within science about evolution. They claim that many scientists reject evolution. They even put together lists of quotes of famous evolutionary scientists that seem to express doubt about evolution.Unfortunately, and very perplexedly since you'd expect the religious to have a pretty good handle on ethical behavior, none of this is true. There's no debate within science about evolution. The objections come almost exclusively from conservative evangelical Christianity.--Percy

Percy, you are a clever opponent and very intelligent, but don't you realize what it is your're actually saying? Why pursue what is not achievable? Things unachievable are not achieved... be it gradual or not. Which is why philosophically, only the Word of God can be true (by definition). For He is unfailing. Could it be your fallibility (as opposed to mine) that causes you not to see Him, When many of us see evidence of Him everywhere? Is that possible, since you cannot bring yourself to state any absolutes such as a no answer? God doesn't change. I will explain better in the next questions response... If something is absolute truth, you cannot change it. It's absolute!It can change what is false, but what is false, can never change truth. How can you say what is or is not true if your perceptions are fallible and such an endeavor is ultimately unachievable?Percy, you are making absolute statements one after the other, while maintaining that absolutes are unknowable.If science cannot find truth, yet continues to search for it, then I maintain that our concept of science is systemic contradiction.Philosophically, the only thing that can be true (i.e. absolute) is God (in whatever capacity He happens to be). So if we are seeking truth, and science cannot give it to us, wouldn't it be wise of us to open our minds to the possibility that one of our world's religions may in fact, not be a religion, but reality?If the search for truth can only mean (logically) the search for God, then shouldn't we search for Him?consider this quote from J.B. Phillips I mean, what if God does will to reveal Himself to us? We cannot deny the possibility without claiming omniscience on our part and making absolute statements.Christ was very consistent, and soke the most logical words I have ever heard. He said we can know! Please allow me to document that claim, and attempt to let Jesus' own words shed light on how through Him, we can see past our blindness. It may not be science in the terms we mortals have determined are meaningful, but as jar and nwr and others have so rightly pointed out, who are we to say what science is, when science is a search for the truth? When we try to define that search ourselves we only invent non-sense and contradictory enterprises...Is the following possible? Now we have already agreed that no mere man can say these things. So what do we do with jesus?He forces us to make a radical and absolute descision. And I advise careful, reasoned, and rational inquiry. Seek and you will find, but you have to do it... I can only give you confidence that you will not have to abandon your intelligence, but only your pride, and your hopes for what you would like reality to be.Sincerely, RobEdited by Rob, : No reason given.

---

Any biters in the stream?

Percy never himself says that science seeks the unachievable truth. He states that others think of science in that manner. he finds it more like an attempt to best explain the world around us. You've apparently never heard of putting up a good fight, huh? I may never be able to change the fuel economy to one based off of hydrogen, but you know what, I'm still going to try. And even though science will most likely never figure everything out, it's still worth the journey of trying to.one last note: The only people who truly think that science is the truth, or is seeking for the truth, are people who aren't too familiar with the more basic concepts of science--what may look like a "truth" today in science could well be a different "truth" tomorrow. The perfect example would be the fat crisis in America, and all the conflicting studies. First its true that this is good, and then it is bad, and another thing is good, but then its bad. The best solution is excercise and diet, but even that is not a "truth" in science.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Because a half truth is better than an all lie.