Re: Rant: Big Bang theory 'ridiculous'

To Jon G:

I had a posting problem before, so here I go again...

Assuming Einstein was correct in all his opinions because
he found a way to interpret what seemed as constrasting data is
obviously illogical and unfounded. Don't you agree?

I think making the assumption that I believe everything Einstein said
was correct is a bit of a stretch. I quoted one thing the man said.

Never ever, does a scientist set out to prove
something it already believes in.

Really? The physicists supporting String Theory are actively working
to prove their theory.

In fact, the scientific method speaks
of "dis-proving" a theory. If the theory I propose is wrong, this
prediction should not happen. If it does, we continue to disprove it
some other way, if it doesn't we revise the theory. Not the other way
around.

This is simply not correct. In my field (and in all others), we come
up with hypotheses to help explain the evidence. Obviously, since we
came up with the hypotheses, we believe in them to a certain extent.
We then design an experiment that ultimately says, "If my hypothesis is
correct, I will see ____." If the evidence, however, is contradictory
to our prediction, we change the hypothesis. Hardly anybody approaches
a scientific question simply trying to disprove other people. If
science took a negative approach (i.e., trying to disprove other
people) instead of a positive approach (i.e., proving what we do
think), I find it hard to believe that we'd be making the type of
progress that we currently are.

What makes a good (and honest) scientist is one that is able to let go
of a theory (even one he holds dear) when the evidence indicates
otherwise.

So it appears to me that Science has nothing to do with Religion nor
faith. Einstein was wrong in saying what you mentioned, and it cost him
the last part of his life and carreer.

That is the biggest load of crock I've read so far (maybe with the
exception of your comment on the Catholic Church finally admitting to a
round earth only 14 years ago). Einstein's final years were spent
searching for a unification theory, which he ultimately failed at. He
also didn't follow (or believe) any of the progress in physics at the
time, in particular quantum mechanics. Because of this, he was quickly
left behind, and his career ended....not because he believed in God.
Wow. What a revision of history you're trying to put forth.

How can you assume that the fact that we DO NOT know how life
originated on the planet proves something or athor? Essentially you
argue that the lack of information proves one theory over another?

Did I say any of these things?

Get it?

"do your colleagues know you aen't got the basic principal of the
scientific method, there at Washington?"

Yeah, I got it. Any scientist who believes in God is incapable of
doing real science. It's good to know that we've got thought-provoking
people out there that are capable of deep, interesting conversations
about science and religion.

That's saracastic. Get it?

--Alex

**************************
Alex B. Berezow, Grad Student
Dept. of Microbiology
University of Washington School of Medicine
Seattle, WA 98195

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: where theistic evolution leads
    ... > and god is certainly one such thing. ... appendix does not affect the data from evolution, ... terms isn't the end of the world nor the end of responsible science. ... never directly disprove it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science and Spirituality
    ... >>> the scientific method, and which are in the realm of spirituality. ... >>is one way to view the history of the interaction of science and religion: ... TGOTG is a shrinking God; ... > will ever be able to perform experiments to disprove. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Science and Spirituality
    ... >> the scientific method, and which are in the realm of spirituality. ... >of things that will never be testable by science and belong strictly to the ... That concept is known as "the God of the gaps" - assigning to God ... will ever be able to perform experiments to disprove. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Science and Faith (Serious)
    ... >> evolution. ... >> shortage of incentives to disprove the theory. ... So called science is as much riddled with leaps ... Is God contemporary? ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)