natty dread wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Assuming ANYTHING is a pretty poor scientific approach.
Ultimately, some assumptions have to be made, since we can never have 100% absolute proof of anything.
Its a sematic question. Of course, there are times when you have to set parameters and that might mean specifying some assumptions. However, they have to be defined, they become part of the "test". Saying "we have to assume "a", because we just cannot test it" is different from saying that you assume something ... and that it does not need to be questioned or tested. What I mean is that a good scientist will try to frame a study so that the question of a or b (or c, d, e, f...) in such a case is nuetral. If that is not possible, then generally the study won't be a fully reliable scientific study.
When it comes to evolution, whether God is manipulating genes or it is some other process/combination of processes, is just not something scientists can determine. They can determine how changes happen over time and to some extent the direct physical mechanisms, but that's it. When scientists begin to try and claim "we have an explanation".."therefore no God"... it is when they leave science and go to religion themselves.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Most scientists, contrary to Nightstrike's beliefs, actually are people of faith
Can we see some statistics of this? I find this hard to believe, unless you stretch the definition of "scientist" by a fair margin...[/quote]
Ironically enough, there was just a study published on this very question.
Here is an article that discusses it:http://www.annarbor.com/faith/science-v ... s-beliefs/
Here is the study referenced: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195392982
Last edited by PLAYER57832
on Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.