@nPeace gets it, because….
That’s the whole point!
A discovery is interpreted in a way to support the “evolution of man,” and it’s presented as an “absolute certainty” by many people, that the interpretation is “proven,” instead of saying what the explanation really is: it’s only one way to understand the evidence.
But then, sometimes new evidence is discovered, and what was touted as an “absolute certainty” is relegated to a footnote.
It’s all in how the information is presented.
That’s what you mean, right, nPeace? If I’m wrong, tell me.
You got it.
I explained that with my illustration in
this post.
They never saw Santa come down the chimney, but they believe he did, because they were told that's how he brings the presents, and since the presents are there, then surely that explanation must be the best one, as to how the presents got there.
They never saw evolution on a macro level, but that must be the best explanation as to how different organism arrived, because...
It looks that way.
Mind you, they haven't seen the dog's paw print, dog's poo or dog's fur, so it's quite easy to fit it to the dog... until someone finds the dog... but no one has, so... it's the dog.
Well, I'm content to let scientists decide for themselves what they can and can't study and investigate.
Me too. It's their work.
This is kind of what I was getting at.
Sure, the Bible does "answer" those questions, but how does it do so? It does so via revelation from a god to a religious authority, which is then written down, put into a book, and then preached to people by authorities.
That's where investigative study comes in, and all people - including scientists - can do that.
Contrast that with how science attempts to answer questions, namely via collection and analysis of data, from which conclusions are drawn. Then all of that is written into papers that describe each step of the process in painstaking detail. The papers are published for anyone to read, and if anyone finds an error or flaw then can write the journal and/or authors so the mistake can be corrected.
Further, in religion the revelations from the gods, once received, are typically considered to be absolute and unchangeable.
But in science, as your OP evinces, all conclusions are considered tentative and open to potential revision.
Pretty different processes, eh?
Not to those who know better.
Some people look at things at a glance, and therefore miss the important bits.
The Bible makes statements which we cannot investigate directly, but can do so indirectly.
You, being a scientist can understand this.
For example, scientists say we cannot see evolution at some levels, becase time is needed - millions of years.
However, they state that evolution at all levels, is an absolute truth... even though they cannot demonstrate it.
This is no different to the Bible, which makes absolute statements as truth.
They cannot be demonstrated, because time is needed.
However, they can be indirectly shown to be true, by investigating their reliability.
In the same way you attempt to answer questions, namely via collection and analysis of data, from which conclusions are drawn.
I don't see any different? Do you?
The other thing is, those absolute truth are such, not because we came up with ideas, but because they are absolute truths which we discover to be absolute truth, if that make sense.
Think of it this way, Einstein's general relativity may change to something else, if a discovery is made that calls for an adjustment in what is currently believed.
That's because they are trying to understand something that's already an absolute truth - fixed.
It cannot change, so our understanding must change to agree with an absolute truth.
Now, the Bible makes statements as absolute truths.
We are on a search for absolute truths.
Does the Bible lead us there?... is the question.
From the evidence, I would say, it looks that way to me, so why should I not accept it, in faith?
There is more reason to do so, than having faith that all life came from a common ancestor.
The idea of UCA has not enen been verified.
People are still waiting, and some are not certain, that the same thing that happened to Darwin's tree, won't happen to the beliefs about UCA.
I was wondering though... As a side point, why exactly do you believe in evolution?
I am not looking for an answer like, because of the evidence... if you know what I mean
Why do you believe it.
That's a good question. I can see how some folks who are more used to religious environments and religious ways of thinking could project some of that onto science. I can also see how some in science can get a bit full of themselves and start to act in ways similar to religious authorities.
Depending on the religion and the topic, they most certainly do. The evolution vs. creationism battles are a prominent example.
So back to the main point....as I described above, science and religion do have very different ways of reaching conclusions (revelation vs. analysis), and they treat those conclusions very differently (absolute vs. tentative). I think those fundamental differences are what's behind threads like these. Some religious folks apply the expectations of religion onto science, and are baffled when they see science not working the way they expect.
Well I disagreed, as I have shown, so I am interested in your response.
Analysis is very much a part of religious study, or approach to finding truth.
The OP is a good example. It seems to carry the expectation that when a scientist reaches a conclusion about something (e.g., first tool use in hominids), that conclusion is akin to a revelation from a religious authority where it's set in stone, is forever true, and is not open to questioning or revision. So when scientists collect more data and revise their previous conclusions as a result, the person looking at it all through a religious lens sees that as some sort of fundamental flaw, when in reality it's simply how science works.
That's why so many replies to the OP boil down to people saying "That's how science works".
Make sense?
As you admitted... and I hope you meant it, some scientists do present a different side to what you said here. Hubris?
Furthermore, scientists are not infallible... nor is science.
In fact, science can present ideologies as scientific truths. It can very much be used as a political and
physical philosophical tool.
Do you disagree? Do you think that is beyond reality, in this world?
