Qms:Objections to Science itself: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''[[Qms:Questioning Mainstream Science#summary|← to | {{QMS}} | ||
==<span id=" | ''[[Qms:Questioning Mainstream Science#summary|← to QMS index]]''<br> | ||
Science homes in on truth by constant correction and refinement: it approaches truth asymptotically. This powerful truth-seeking technique | ==<span id="changing"></span>Science is "always changing"== | ||
Science is sometimes criticised as "always changing". The idea is that if it needed to be corrected it must have been wrong; therefore as "ever-changing science", it is probably still wrong. Science, however, homes in on truth by ''constant'' correction and refinement: it approaches truth asymptotically. This is a powerful truth-seeking technique, seen, for example, in hill-climbing algorithms. The simple claim that science is "always wrong" is a [[Unworthy Arguments#misrep|misrepresentation]].<br> | |||
An example is found in the peroration that concludes the [["Genesis Foundations"]] series published during 2015 by {{CMag}}: | |||
<blockquote>The position of this magazine is unchanged by current evolutionary thinking. In faith we accept the account of Genesis, that God created the heavens and the earth. Adam was formed from the dust and Eve was made from one of his ribs. Adam’s decision to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in disobedience resulted in the introduction of death, and only the atoning work of the Lord Jesus provides a remedy to its effects. Where the inspired word appears to be at odds with current thinking, our position is to place trust in scripture and not give the benefit of the doubt to the current (and ever-changing) ‘wisdom’ of science. | |||
<blockquote><div align="right">— {{ABramhill}} (on behalf of the Committee of the [[CMPA]]), ''{{CMag}},'' December 2015</div></blockquote> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
==Doubting the explanatory power of Science== | |||
[[Casey Luskin]] of the [[Discovery Institute]] offers ''"The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution"'' [https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/ here]. He alleges the following list of problems: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
:[https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem1 Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup] | |||
:[https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem2 Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code] | |||
:[https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem3 Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures] | |||
:[https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem4 Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations] | |||
:[https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem5 Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution] | |||
:[https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem6 Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life”] | |||
:[https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem7 Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry] | |||
:[https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem8 Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry] | |||
:[https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem9 Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species] | |||
:[https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem10 Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA”] | |||
:[https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problembonus Bonus Problem: Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage] | |||
</blockquote> | |||
Latest revision as of 12:37, 7 April 2022
QMS: Questioning Mainstream Science
← to QMS index
Science is "always changing"
Science is sometimes criticised as "always changing". The idea is that if it needed to be corrected it must have been wrong; therefore as "ever-changing science", it is probably still wrong. Science, however, homes in on truth by constant correction and refinement: it approaches truth asymptotically. This is a powerful truth-seeking technique, seen, for example, in hill-climbing algorithms. The simple claim that science is "always wrong" is a misrepresentation.
An example is found in the peroration that concludes the "Genesis Foundations" series published during 2015 by The Christadelphian Magazine:
The position of this magazine is unchanged by current evolutionary thinking. In faith we accept the account of Genesis, that God created the heavens and the earth. Adam was formed from the dust and Eve was made from one of his ribs. Adam’s decision to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in disobedience resulted in the introduction of death, and only the atoning work of the Lord Jesus provides a remedy to its effects. Where the inspired word appears to be at odds with current thinking, our position is to place trust in scripture and not give the benefit of the doubt to the current (and ever-changing) ‘wisdom’ of science.
— Andrew Bramhill (on behalf of the Committee of the CMPA), The Christadelphian Magazine, December 2015
Doubting the explanatory power of Science
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute offers "The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution" here. He alleges the following list of problems:
- Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
- Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code
- Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures
- Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations
- Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution
- Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life”
- Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry
- Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry
- Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species
- Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA”
- Bonus Problem: Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage
