Hi Buz,
Thanks for giving this another try.
First, the title needs to change. The discussion should be about the nature of scientific evidence, the kind of evidence appropriate for the science forums. Could you please change it to "The Nature of Scientific Evidence"?
Buzsaw writes:
Evidence can be based on actual visible physical observance of objects, alleged events or derived from non-visible relativity, quantum or math theories.
I don't think anyone would agree that theories provide evidence. Is that what you really meant to say? Would you agree to this phrasing, or come up with your own as long as it doesn't characterize the nature of scientific evidence incorrectly:
"Evidence is anything detected by the five senses."
The nature of the above two evidences is that things physically observed, such as archeological discoveries, historical events, perhaps foretold before the fact, sometimes millenniums ago or labratory studies on things etc.
Since theories do not provide evidence, there are not two types of evidence. Also, this thread isn't about prophecy and foretold events. Would you agree to remove this paragraph?
BB theory, and biogenisis of life, followed by the earliest organisms are examples of evidence derived by more abstract methodology such as string, math or quantum.
By "BB theory" I assume you mean just the Big Bang since, again, theories do not provide evidence. By "biogenesis of life" I assume you mean "abiogenesis of life", since there is no controversy about biogenesis. Evidence for the Big Bang, for abiogenesis, and for the earliest organisms does not derive from "more abstract methodology such as string, math or quantum." It derives from observational evidence. Would you agree to remove the above sentence?
The nature of this evidence tends to be less empirical, imo, because it has never been physically observed, leaving other options which might also explain origins of life and positions about the Universe, whether it is finite or infinite in time etc.
Without the previous sentence, this sentence is no longer required. Would you agree to remove it?
Biblicalist evidence relies more on, eye witnesses accounts of fulfilled prophecy, such as the unprecedented scattering of the Jews, to be regathered after over 19 centuries to restore their original tiny nation, surrounded by hostile gentile nations who, time and again collectively attempt to destroy them
If you would like to propose an alternative type of evidence that you're labeling "Biblical evidence" then you need to be clear about what distinguishes it from scientific evidence. You had an earlier proposal on this topic that you abandoned:
The Science Method: How IDists And non-IDists Apply It
We who are Biblical scholars, apprised in prophecy and of many archeological discoveries tend to apply pysically observed data whereas, the secularistic minded members must rely on the more abstract theories, none of which are physically visible by anyone.
Again, no one in science thinks that evidence derives from theory. Would you agree to remove the above sentence?
| -- | Percy |
| | EvC Forum Director |
™ Version 4.2