Comments on: Faith v. Science http://trombonium.net/puma/2010/02/25/faith-v-science/ Help I'm A Broken Tagline! Mon, 21 May 2012 04:38:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Jeff http://trombonium.net/puma/2010/02/25/faith-v-science/comment-page-1/#comment-57 Jeff Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:47:01 +0000 http://trombonium.net/puma/?p=361#comment-57 Well, whoever said what was quoted above really has no understanding of science or the history of science at all. He incorrectly assumes in his argument that science is static. He seems to believe that once "science" produces a "known," then that "known" is absolutely correct and immutable. Reality is quite the opposite, though. Science is definitely not static; it is most certainly dynamic. Our understanding of what we know and what we think we know scientifically is constantly changing. For example, a few hundred years ago, scientists stated that it was fact that earth was flat and that the sun and other celestrial bodies revolved around the earth. Of course, in time, that was proven wrong once we had the right tools and more intelligent scientists to discover that it was the other way around. At one point in time, we thought the only components of an atom were the proton and electron, until it was eventually discovered that there was a third particle, a neutron. My point is that we only know what we know, until we know more. We can't assume that what we know at this moment about something is all there is to know about it. As far as the statement about science having a track record and faith flying planes into buildings goes, that's like saying guns kill people. Neither is true. People kill people. It's just another blanket statement that people like to make when they have an otherwise weak argument. It was scientists that created nuclear/biological/chemical weapons that have no other use than the death and destruction of men and the environment. It's man that does evil. Not a particular type of man. Every man has choice whether he's a man of science or a man of faith (of course I must point out that the two are not mutually exclusive). The choice to pursue that which is right or that which is wrong. Well, whoever said what was quoted above really has no understanding of science or the history of science at all. He incorrectly assumes in his argument that science is static. He seems to believe that once “science” produces a “known,” then that “known” is absolutely correct and immutable. Reality is quite the opposite, though. Science is definitely not static; it is most certainly dynamic. Our understanding of what we know and what we think we know scientifically is constantly changing. For example, a few hundred years ago, scientists stated that it was fact that earth was flat and that the sun and other celestrial bodies revolved around the earth. Of course, in time, that was proven wrong once we had the right tools and more intelligent scientists to discover that it was the other way around. At one point in time, we thought the only components of an atom were the proton and electron, until it was eventually discovered that there was a third particle, a neutron. My point is that we only know what we know, until we know more. We can’t assume that what we know at this moment about something is all there is to know about it.

As far as the statement about science having a track record and faith flying planes into buildings goes, that’s like saying guns kill people. Neither is true. People kill people. It’s just another blanket statement that people like to make when they have an otherwise weak argument. It was scientists that created nuclear/biological/chemical weapons that have no other use than the death and destruction of men and the environment. It’s man that does evil. Not a particular type of man. Every man has choice whether he’s a man of science or a man of faith (of course I must point out that the two are not mutually exclusive). The choice to pursue that which is right or that which is wrong.

]]>