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

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

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

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

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

The way you quoted this made it seem like I was claiming that "science seeks truth". I wasn't. I said: The people who phrase it this way intend it as analogous to striving for perfection or trying to never sin. Both are unattainable, but we strive for them all the same. Well, yes, of course. Science is a human activity, and people aren't perfect. Our best expression of reality will always fall short. Only God knows the full truth.Most of the rest of your post is about God and Jesus, but this thread is about the definition of science.--Percy

Percy no say science seeks truth. Rob say Percy say science seeks truth. Rob no speak truth. --Percy

If you're referring to a thread you've posted to in the past, then just click on your name and you'll get a list of all the threads you've participated in in date order of your last post to each thread.--Percy

It's "empiricism".To measure the acceleration of gravity, an empirical approach might drop an object next to a long measuring stick while flashing a strobe light with a camera pointed at the whole arrangement. Then you'd measure the spacing of the images of the object on film and derive the acceleration of gravity.How would you find the acceleration of gravity using metaphysical revelation?--Percy

So in other words, when you said: What you really meant was that the important questions aren't the mere mechanical ones regarding how the universe works, but ones dealing with issues like meaning and ultimate origins.Agreed. Metaphysics is much broader than this. Theology is just one branch of metaphysics. It might be more accurate to say that religion is the search for meaning. I'm sure you can find people who do this, but so what? This thread is about the proper definition of science, not about misapplication of scientific principles.--Percy

And I repeat, this thread is about the definition of science. I won't help you draw the thread off-topic. If you'd like to discuss the misapplication of science and scientific principles to non-scientific realms then you might consider proposing a new thread.--Percy