A Tale of Two "Theories"

Common definition of 'theory': an unproved assumption: conjecture; abstract thought: speculation

Scientific definition of 'theory': mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

It's amazing! The difference between the two 'theory's. Almost like there needs to be another word to describe the Scientific Definition of Theory. But, there is not; since there is no alternative word today, there are factions of people who spin one definition of the word to the other definition of the word.
We've all heard. The main reason for the justification of 'Intelligent Design' is, "Evolution Theory is just a theory; it is not fact; we offer another 'theory' that should be taught alongside evolution to give THE CHILDREN another option."

Let's break down the theories, shall we. First, let's see what Scientific Theories are out there. For Example: Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, Faraday's Law of Induction, Bernoulli's Equation, the Equivalence of Mass and Energy (E=MC^2).

Now, COMMON THEORIES: the Magic Bullet Theory, Jimmy Hoffa Buried Under the Meadowlands Theory, The Jesus Theory (The Priory of Zion), Princess Diana 'Murdered' Theory, Intelligent Design Theory, The Roswell Cover Up Theory.

There's a difference. One set of theories are tested over and over again; not to prove that the theory is correct, but to DISPROVE the theory. That is the point of Scientific Theories: to disprove the theory. Truth is the main goal with this type of theory. If an observation or experiment goes against the theory, the theory will be revise and re-tested. If the revised theory is tested and succeeds in prediction of the result, then that theory holds.

The other COMMON THEORY: a guess; based on NO SCIENTIFIC DATA (just like a Bush Administration Report). Hearsay. 'Just Throw Something At It And See If It Sticks'.

Gravitation Theory is a pretty accepted Theory. Einstein wasn't a 'kook'. Aircraft lifts according to Bernoulli, and Darwin's explanation of our origination is spot-on accurate (of course, new evidence could change the theory, just like any other theory; new methods could bring about a new way to look at data).

An old example of Common Theory: the Earth is FLAT. Remember back in the early 1500's? Nicolaus Copernicus introduced the idea of the Earth being round and the Sun Does NOT rotate around the Earth. That upset Christians. The good book said it wasn't true. The good book said the Earth was flat. But faced with the overwhelmingly mounting body of evidence to prove the Earth was round, what did the Church do? They labeled him a heretic. Who followed him? Galileo Galilei. What happened? He was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture".

Copernicus' ideas was spreading around 1520. How long did it take the Church to finally remove any prohibitions of heliocentrism? 1835!!!! It only took 300 years for the Church to admit that the FLAT EARTH was wrong. That gives me hope.

But we are in a different day and age. Now, America has to deal with a small, but very loud minority of Religious Fundamentalists whose only goal is to resort every citizen of this free nation to follow the beliefs of that one specific sect. Whenever Evolution is brought up in public school curriculum discussion (which it should be brought up since it is as close to fact as can be). But some kid's parent (who probably home-schooled the kid with more religious education per day than any other subject) would be 'offended' by the truth and they would tell a fellow follower, who would then tell another, then 'Viola'! A packed School Board of angry Fundamentalists demanding the removal of scientific fact. And, as the previous articles I placed on the blog states clearly, teachers and board members are pressured to not offend those who don't believe in those scientific facts.

The real problem is that most Christians have the capacity to agree with the science, but follow the Religion.

From the Times of India-

VATICAN CITY: A Vatican cardinal has said the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the "mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the centre of the universe.

"The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future," Poupard said.

But he said science, too, should listen to religion. "We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: The atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said.

"But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said. "The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."

Religion has done more to help people than any other organization ever. Religion has also BEEN RESPONSIBLE for more pain, war, destruction, and evil that any other organization. Books like the Bible are open to the reader: You will get what you want to see. I see it as a collection of stories that was a rudimentary set of laws and morals for past civilizations to follow (either to keep the people in order or for the powerful to control the people). Back then, simple stories don't keep the people following. You need to add Power. Power that no man can possess. Power that is so powerful, you should be in fear of repercussion if you do anything wrong. Welcome to the Bible. Follow what the Bible means, not what it says.

And don't use a book that was written 2 millennium ago by people who worshiped sheep (in more ways than one) to define our CURRENT DAY SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES. We are too advanced scientifically to resort to superstitions and bed-time stories to tell us how to behave and learn.

No comments: