Scientific arrogance

[SPhilly]

Let me begin by saying that I have a science degree and work in a profession that is very science oriented. I love this forum since it always seems to have intelligent and rational discussion about interesting topics (it may be scattered about but its usually there). My concern is with the people who claim to believe that science can explain everything.
Do you not realize that accepting every scientific theory as fact requires the same type of faith you criticize many of the religious posters for?

My biggest complaint is the recent treatment of ID. Most people dramatically mischaracterize this movement as a religious movement, which it is not. Granted many religious fanatic groups have adopted it as a way to get creationalism into schools but this is not the intent of the movement. What is wrong with having doubt about scientific theories? I thought this is what science was all about. Otherwise we would we still believe in spontaneous generation and the earth as the center of the universe (many “intelligent” people adamantly resisted change in these theories not all that long ago).
Every so often the “geniuses” and intellectually “Elite” among us proclaim that everything is known already and there is nothing of significance to learn. I feel this is happening today. I came from the teaching that the scientific view should be about knowledge, not preconceived notions or theories. Why are so many people that claim to be science oriented the most closed-minded??

If in the end ID causes more people to reexamine all aspect of evolution then is not something gained here? What might result is a stronger more elegant theory of evolution that can plug some of the current gaps. What is everyone afraid of? Imagine that, those that have the most faith in scientific theories seem the most frightened of any competition. Seems eerily similar to the bible thumpers that believe the world is only thousands of years old because The Book says so. They shy away from challenges too.

[Jeff V]

Good post. I'm very interested in the responses you'll get here as I've been trying to get answers to some of these same questions.

Jeff

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Why are so many people that claim to be science oriented the most closed-minded??

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easier to work with a finite set of axioms? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Catholic church also held the same view for many years about science BTW. (ie- dark ages) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not realize that accepting every scientific theory as fact requires the same type of faith you criticize many of the religious posters for?

[/ QUOTE ]

True but its a bit of a strawman. Science does not claim these theories as fact and anyone who claims they are fact is not being scientific.

Compare with religion which does claim that its teachings are fact.

chez

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with having doubt about scientific theories?

[/ QUOTE ]

ID isn't about having doubts about scientific theory and the movement has nothing to do with firming up the current theory of evolution. People are doing that already and ID has nothing to do with that. You should have some doubt about scientific theories, and I think most scientists would agree. ID isn't about doubting evolution, it is about making evolution fit with God. That is why it is religion and not science. Religions can no longer deny that evolution is almost certainly correct, so they are scrambling to make it fit in with religion. It is not science to say "even if evolution is true there still could be a God." That is religion.

[SPhilly]

Thats exactly my point. If someone claims to be Catholic then it is safe to assume that that individual takes all those teachings to be fact (if they are in fact truly Catholic). If someone claims science explains everything then they are taking theories to be fact which is not what science teaches.
One is replacing science with religion the other is making science a religion.

[Jeff V]

I think your understanding of ID is a little off.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats exactly my point. If someone claims to be Catholic then it is safe to assume that that individual takes all those teachings to be fact (if they are in fact truly Catholic). If someone claims science explains everything then they are taking theories to be fact which is not what science teaches.
One is replacing science with religion the other is making science a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, good point [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

but I think its the point people missed when people claim religous theories are similar to scientific theories. ID is not science and should be kept to the philosophy/theology classes.


chez

[SPhilly]

[ QUOTE ]
ID isn't about doubting evolution, it is about making evolution fit with God.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding was that many of those in the begining of ID were not concerned about God whatsoever. The underlying belief was of an intelligent design that could have been other intelligent life, etc. If I were extremely religious and logical I would not need ID to make evolution fit with a concept of God.
I guess from a scientific standpoint I am more concerned with the arguments for and against evolution (as it is taught today) and less concerned with the motivation.

[SPhilly]

[ QUOTE ]
ID is not science and should be kept to the philosophy/theology classes.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is where most of my difficulty arises in these debates. How do you draw the line between science and philosophy/Theology when both are (in their purest forms)pursuits of knowledge.
For example is theoretical physics with strings and membranes science or philosophy? Much of these theories revolve around complex mathematical models that no one can actually visualize (most cannot comprehend, myself included). Yet this is science right?
But if someone theorizes that something intelligent was involved in "planning" the universe then its relegated to theological non-sense.
My point being that both theories arive from attempting to explain things we do not currently have the capacity to understand. What makes one more valid than another? (at this point anyway)