How does that explain your position about that scientific theory, scientific law, and scientific facts can all be jumbled up in a big pile and not separate as individual and distinct categories?
Hi OB, The old question of: "What came first--the chicken or the egg?" comes to mind.
The egg. Actually, in a sense both came at the same time since the "chicken" was "born" when the red junglefowl was domesticated 5,000 years ago in Asia. In essence, humans created the "chicken" by domestication of a wild bird. The word "chicken" is our label on a bird that has different genetic code through breeding from that wild bird. At the time of the first domestication, they probably took both eggs, chicks, hens, and rosters at once.
All things that one sees are real and is a logical fact---and since mankind can interact with those "facts" to a certain extent---they are scientific facts.
Sure.
Mankind is trying to understand why the existing real things naturally function as they do and has supposed/theorized some principles and worked out some formulas to explain the activity. But that doesn't explain the "Source" of what is seen. The mechanism by whose these operate is called "laws"-- For functions known or unknown.
Not quite. Scientific laws are those facts of nature that are universal. Find a physical observation that's a fact that applies to all nature, at all times, universally, then it can be a law.
Still doesn't explain Thief's attempt to non-answer.
The Scriptural account gives the "Source" for it all. Gen.1+2.
NO other conjectured "source" satisfies the multiple unanswered "details" which has to be understood/present to logically have what is physically seen.
Nature, reality, existence, world, universe, it's all One. And that's the Source. Based on my own contemplation, meditation, insight and learnings from science and other fields, plus a long life of experience. It's all interconnected.
It is those suppositions/ideas/working propositions which are the "Theories" upon which the experiments are based and proceed.
A scientific theory is a model or explanation of found/observed facts about nature. A scientific theory isn't promoted to "law" or "fact" at some point. But many theories are based on certain facts that the terms in front of the word "theory" also relates to observed facts. Like "theory of evolution" relates to the theory, the explanation of evolution. But evolution, as such, is an observed fact of the world. So evolution is a fact. Theory of evolution is the theory/model/explanation of the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution will never be "promoted" to the fact of evolution, since the theory is the explanation of the fact of evolution already.
The theory of genesis is based on one scripture. One text written by an unknown author (presumed Moses, but not confirmed), many, many, many years ago. What he/she got his/her information from, we can't know for sure. It could have been brought about by drugs, bad mushrooms, bad shellfish, sickness, or just basic fantasies. There are too many explanations to this single text. On the other hand you have hundreds of thousands of scientists working for 200 years and producing thousands of experiments and finding millions of artifacts, all working in unison to find a theory that explains the facts of nature. That explanation fits much better than the single ancient anonymous document. Simple as that.
However, you can always find interesting parts in Genesis that talks to you on a different level. Instead of taking Genesis literally, read it as a story that will teach you something about humanity and life in general, and spiritual life, then you'll find the true message.
