Scientific Theory For Dummies

Science deals with evidence, and uses theories to explain that evidence.It is not the fault of scientists that folks who deal with divine revelation and scripture and the like can't produce reliable evidence to support their claims.Nor is it the fault of scientists that their evidence discredits some or many of the claims of religion.Perhaps religion needs better claims, ones that don't get overturned by evidence from the real world?And perhaps religion needs to stop trying to censor science for doing what it is supposed to do?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Yes, but it doesn't mean it's completely falsified. There are ways in which it can be wrong, but also ways in which it can be right, so you can't just dismiss the whole thing.Stepping away from relativity and quantum mechanics, and speaking more generally:
There will always be SOME contradictory evidence for any theory. Some study will come out that goes against a prediction of a theory. However, like I stated before, 1 bit of contradictory evidence is not enough to falsify a theory that is backed by loads of positive evidence. Contradictory evidence can arise for a number of reasons involving incomplete knowledge or human error, and it's not always obvious that these are the reasons for the evidence appearing contradictory. So, until more evidence against a theory amounts, it can't be dismissed right away.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

You are still deluding yourself that science has some war against religion. Lots of scientists don't like Dawkins, either, and wish he would shut up.When practicing science, in other words, when they're working, scientists don't think about religion, just as when plumbers and electricians are working they're not thinking about religion, even fervent evangelical plumbers and electricians.Most scientists have no problem with religion, and many scientists are religious anyway. What scientists have a problem with is religious apologists promoting religion as science. They're not against your religion's religion. They're against your religion's unevidenced "science."--Percy

Don't get me wrong. I blame both sides.I remember in high school I was a math tutor. Back then, I was in AP calculus and was getting ready to take the AP exam. There was a girl that came in who needed help in pre-algebra. Another tutor took the job. I used the time to do my homework, so I didn't pay attention at all until later on when I began to pick up a slight tone of annoyance from the tutor of that girl. So, I started paying attention. Apparently, the girl couldn't understand why if X + 1 = Y and X = 2 then Y = 3.I know, you laugh now, but for those who are mathematically challenged, such a simple problem could be the worst stumbling block in their lives.After trying unsuccessfully for some 10 minutes or so, I offerred to help. I approached this by asking what the girl didn't understand. She said she understood X = X, but how did that get to X = 2? It just didn't click for her. Then I remembered my teacher once telling us about the same problem he once had with a student. So, I decided to use his way of explaining this puppy to this girl. I told her that X is just a place holder, just like her name. Her name happened to be... argg I can't remember her namer right now. Let just say it's Ashley. I told her that Ashley was just a place holder for the person. Her middle name could represent her just as well as her first name.Amazingly enough, it worked. She understood algebra when I started to relate it to real life.And no offense to anyone here, but the first few posts in this thread show exactly the problem that I was trying to say. Those aren't explanations for dummies. They're just the same complicated jargon shortened to less number of sentences. I don't think I explained myself well enough.I'm not just complaining about the lengths of those monster posts. I'm also complaining about the language that was used.For example, let's look at the simplest definition of evolution. Most people on here would say something along the line of the change in allele frequency over time in a population.I admit to being guilty for having used something along this line to answer the question. But to people who aren't familiar with science at all, what the fuck does that even mean? Then complicated posts are composed to explain what allele frequency really means and how it is related from concept to the real world. 20 posts later, people are now arguing over whether President Bush believed in evolution or not. Actually, this one it is you who are confused. I know of no scientist that has tried to disprove the existence of god via science. Don't confuse science with logic. When Dawkins talks about the existence or non-existence of god, he's talking from a philosophical/ logical perspective.It is when creationists try to use god as an explanation in science that scientists begin to point out that science is completely neutral in regard to the issue of existence or non-existence of god. Not what I'm saying at all.

My apology for having been silent in this thread this long. Time has been a rare commodity for me.I would explain scientific theory in the following way. Note that I don't have all the answers and that the following could just as easily be bollocks.In life, we often run into unexplained things. I remember watching one episode of Arthur on PBS. I was bored. The episode was about Arthur's little sister wanting Arthur to explain to her why people keep growing hair throughout their lives. Arthur said that he had learned it in school but was too complicated for her to understand. So, his little sister, who was 5, decided to come up with a theory of her own.She supposed that inside a person's head there are rolls of threads of hair and that the rolls would unroll throughout the person's life. When an adult went bald, it's because he ran out of hair threads.That's a little person's attempt at coming up with a model to explain an unexplained phenomenon.We all can expect this little girl's explanation of people's hair growth would change dramatically as she grows.That said, science is very similar to that. Different phenomena are observed. Scientists would try to come up with a model to explain how these phenomena exist. As more and more data come in, the theory is refined.Religious doctrine, on the other hand, is completely different. Mr. X claims divine revelation that told him Y is true. Therefore, Y is true for all eternity.Hope that helps.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

The denial of the close relationship between today’s science and atheism never ceases to amaze me. Maybe this thread will be enlightening — either about that relationship, or about the extent of the denial. But the opening poster didn’t have anything bad to say about him, did he? He claimed that Dawkins was trying to educate. Do you think Dawkins is part of the solution, or part of the problem? (that was described in the OP) But when selling atheism to teens and twenty-somethings, top scientists think about it a lot then, don’t they? Yes, I've been told many times. All devout Christian scientists can't stand creationists, and agree with Dawkins about everything!

That’s fine, but your opening post didn’t really indicate that, combined with the thread title. You didn’t say anything about Shermer and Dawkins passion to use science to sell atheism. That’s exactly right — far fewer people know what an allele frequency is than have read at least one of these four NY Times best sellers; Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation , Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great , and Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. In looking at reviews for those books, it’s not hard to imagine that they reference the relationship evolution has with George Bush’s beliefs far more than they reference anything about allele frequencies. Try Victor Stengers; God — The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. You said you read a lot - get yourself a copy and you’ll be closer than you’ve ever been to a top source of your frustration and confusion and headaches. (I have a copy of it, just in case you'd like to discuss any of it) He’s an degreed biologist! How are his listeners supposed to know when he’s talking about science, or atheism? He’s a master at blending them! You shouldn’t refer to people as dummies who are duped by him. So the title of Victor Stengers book is a LIE? Why would a publisher accept a book with a LIE in the title? Because they know it will sell well anyway? Or maybe because they know that one small special interest (scientists) don’t get to define words — that words are defined by how they are referred to and used by people in a society at large? Then an interesting question would be; What’s the one most important thing that could be done to alleviate the problems most people have with an understanding of science? In your opening post, you said;

quote:

---

I've noticed that most people out there don't have a first clue what scientific theory is. Most seem to think it's comparable to religious doctrine.

---

Could that be because top scientists associate it with religious doctrine in their NY Times best sellers?I have a suggestion, it would be for the scientific community to strongly suggest that its most prominent members (Shermer and Dawkins, Stenger, Dennett, countless others) get OUT of the atheist promotion business! Do you have a better idea than that one?

There is no such "close relationship". But if you get you enjoyment in life out of having a persecution complex, then don't let me stop you. All you can tell from the open post, is that he did not have anything bad to say about Dawkins that was on topic for this thread. So you are just jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence you are citing. Very few top scientists are selling atheism to anybody.

Personally, I have not read any of those books. I expect that I would find them insufferably boring - but that's just a guess based on the titles. I can do without the rhetoric from either side, thank you.I have been in university computer science and mathematics departments. Over the years, I have had over 100 colleagues. And I only have an inkling about the religious views of two of them, and even then only because of chance remarks. The subject just does not come up. Personally, I would prefer that they get out of the atheist promotion business. But they do have a freedom of expression, so they will have to make that choice for themselves.By the way, Dennett is a philosopher, not a scientist.

Yes. For the religious community to stay out of science. Come on, tit for tat.

I think I'm going to have to concur with Nwr that you have a persecution complex where facts play only a small role, so I'm going to demur from further attempts at rational dialog with you.--Percy

Shermer is not a scientist, let alone a prominent one. He's noted as a skeptical activist, not a scientist.Daniel Dennett is not a scientist, he's a philosopher.I've never even heard of Stenger, so he may be a scientist, but he's not a prominent anything, not even a prominent atheist.Dawkins is, I think, a fairly prominent scientist, he has made a genuine contribution to science. But he's not "most prominent" in science, he's most prominent for his campaign for atheism.These are not "the most prominent members" of "the scientific community". They're some of the most prominent atheists that you've heard of. At least half of them are not scientists at all.As for what "the scientific community" should "strongly suggest", well, fuck that backwards. Here is a fact. By a small but appreciable majority, most scientists are atheists. So if they were going to "strongly suggest" that anyone should shut their mouths, they'd start with ID-iots like Michael Behe and William Dembski, and then they'd move on to theist evolutionists like Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris. But they do not do so. The scientific community is happy to engage in debate. But you want them to suppress the debate. Well, if they did, which side of the debate would they suppress?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I think he means Victor J. Stenger. As can be seen in the wiki article, he is no longer a scientist (he quit in the '90's, the book Marc mentions is form 2007), and focusses more on philosophy and religious skepticism now.In other words, 3 of his 4 "prominent scientists" aren't scientists, or when they are, certainly not promiment.Edited by Huntard, : some clarity

Aside from Dawkins, the most prominent practicing scientists in the creation/evolution debate that I can think of are Stephen Jay Gould (now deceased) and Ken Miller, both very friendly to religion.And of course the Methodists and Catholics must be atheists, too, since they have no problem with evolution or the rest of modern science.--Percy

But of course. Those zealous satan worshipping liberal nazi communist atheists have found a way to destroy religion from the inside out!Seriously Marc, is there any real evidence you can cite, or just your paranoid prosecution complex?