7 ms·

But that's what exciting about science. It doesn't claim to come with ready made answers about our surroundings, humans discover things on their own. Sometimes

by camus2 9y ago

But that's what exciting about science. It doesn't claim to come with ready made answers about our surroundings, humans discover things on their own. Sometimes humans get things wrong, and there is no shame in being wrong with science, it's part of the process, unlike "other domains" where people can or will never admin they are wrong, while still using the product of science every day, in contradiction to their own "science".

jansho 9y ago
I don't know, the inability to admit being wrong is a human trait and can apply to anyone, including scientists and believers. Why does everyone think that there's only two "origin" stories and they're both mutually exclusive? I believe in evolution, and I'm a monotheist. I don't reach this conclusion very easily. Why not evolution as God's* way of creating things. *I hesitate to use this word because of the baggage it carries, but somehow Designer or Creator doesn't seem sufficient here...
- davidw 9y ago
  Science is about stuff that is falsifiable.
- nkrisc 9y ago
  Why not evolution as "God's" way of creating things? Well, why not anything? You can posit anything you want, can you test it? Is there evidence to support it? Why monotheist? How do you know for certain there aren't more gods? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you test it? Could you admit your belief in monotheism could possibly be mistaken? We can ask "why not anything?" all day and not get anywhere so it's more worthwhile to focus on the things for which evidence can actually be gathered. Evolution is testable and there exists much evidence of it occurring in the past. The other origin, not so much.
  - jansho 9y ago
    Well, "Why not" is one way to keep an open mind. Why not this world in a multiverse. Why not this world in a simulation. Why not a simulation within a simulation. Why not a programmer who wrote the code for this world - and how is this any stranger than our other what ifs. We're human, we don't just operate on facts - we rely on educated assumptions that we make, some of which may be strong enough to translate into belief. This may be driven by evidence, or just our humanly intuition and experiences. But this is also human: The beauty of science is that it adapts as new evidence is revealed - someone here said this earlier. [No final answer] but rather based on the current evidence, an answer can be formulated that is consistent with the evidence available at that time. It's human because it depends on our perspective; where we are in time, whether we find the truths (evidence) or not, and whether we are capable of perceiving all truths. Science is continually evolving in our minds - or more accurately, in the collective minds over time. Can the great jigsaw puzzle ever be solved? That's not the aim of science, as it is proud to point out, but it argues that whatever picture we come up with, it's justified as long as it's based on the current collection of evidence - this is a philosophy. And I'm personally not satisfied with this, as a way of life. Why don't I deserve the truth in its entirety, in my lifetime? You would ask, why do I even question whether I deserve or not? I guess it's a human thing. But for me, as a person, I intuit closest to monotheism. Monotheism provides a framework where anything is possible, but bound by the belief in the Great Programmer who can do whatever he wants. It can work for anyone, regardless of their time and place; and for me as a person fortunate to live in an advanced age, I can accept evolution, because I think it's pretty robust and who am I to question how he creates the world. This for me is more liberating than having to accept whatever picture current evidence is showing - actually, I look forward to witness more development. It's also quite a comfortable position to be in; if science does show that we live in a simulation, that's OK, if it shows that we live in a multiverse, that's cool too.
    - Myrmornis 9y ago
      The thing is it's just not very interesting what you "intuit". You're free to do it, but it's of no consequence. Some things that are interesting are (1) observations of reality that allow us to choose among competing hypotheses for how reality works and what has happened in reality, and (2) such testable hypotheses.
  - boneheadmed 9y ago
    Unfortunately, you can't test evolution in the same way that you can test for example if an artificial organ will function in an animal. You can only speculate about the past.
- roywiggins 9y ago
  The current Pope is cool with evolution. I think this is a common view, especially among religious scientists. Only some people think evolution is incompatible with divine creation.
  - eric_the_read 9y ago
    Not that you're wrong, but this isn't exactly news. St Augustine, back in the late 4th century/early 5th, was "cool" with evolution, if you care to use those words: "Th[e] tree surely did not spring forth suddenly in [a mature] size and form, but rather went through a process of growth with which we are familiar. …[It] took its shape as it [gradually] developed with all its parts. … One [form of tree] comes from the other [form of tree], therefore, in succession, but both come from earth and not earth from them. Earth, then, is prior and is their source. The same is true of animals." (http://www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/st-augustine-on-evolutio.html http://www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/st-augustine-on...) While he didn't think that a new genus could arise in this way, he was pretty clearly on the right track, especially given the rather sketchy knowledge on the subject of biology in his day.
- camus2 9y ago
  > the inability to admit being wrong If facts work against your theories, as a scientist, there is nothing you can do. You can deny facts all you want it doesn't matter. At the end of the day the scientific community will put your theories in the trash. There is nothing to prove or to disprove with religion, it's based on faith, not on facts. If you're a christian you believe Jesus actually multiplied fishes. IF you're a muslim, you believe your prophet talked to archange Gabriel. These aren't facts. The existance of "angels" is not a fact, no more than the ability for men to multiply fishes. You can't bullshit the scientific community forever with theories that aren't backed by anything.
dang 9y ago
Please let's not have generic science vs. religion threads (a.k.a. flamewars, because that's what they turn into). This comment wasn't so bad, but it predictably led to much worse because it's impossible to say new or substantive things about anything so generic. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14508125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14508125 and marked it off-topic.

by camus2 9y ago

jansho 9y ago

I don't know, the inability to admit being wrong is a human trait and can apply to anyone, including scientists and believers. Why does everyone think that there's only two "origin" stories and they're both mutually exclusive? I believe in evolution, and I'm a monotheist. I don't reach this conclusion very easily. Why not evolution as God's* way of creating things. *I hesitate to use this word because of the baggage it carries, but somehow Designer or Creator doesn't seem sufficient here...

davidw 9y ago
Science is about stuff that is falsifiable.
nkrisc 9y ago
Why not evolution as "God's" way of creating things? Well, why not anything? You can posit anything you want, can you test it? Is there evidence to support it? Why monotheist? How do you know for certain there aren't more gods? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you test it? Could you admit your belief in monotheism could possibly be mistaken? We can ask "why not anything?" all day and not get anywhere so it's more worthwhile to focus on the things for which evidence can actually be gathered. Evolution is testable and there exists much evidence of it occurring in the past. The other origin, not so much.
- jansho 9y ago
  Well, "Why not" is one way to keep an open mind. Why not this world in a multiverse. Why not this world in a simulation. Why not a simulation within a simulation. Why not a programmer who wrote the code for this world - and how is this any stranger than our other what ifs. We're human, we don't just operate on facts - we rely on educated assumptions that we make, some of which may be strong enough to translate into belief. This may be driven by evidence, or just our humanly intuition and experiences. But this is also human: The beauty of science is that it adapts as new evidence is revealed - someone here said this earlier. [No final answer] but rather based on the current evidence, an answer can be formulated that is consistent with the evidence available at that time. It's human because it depends on our perspective; where we are in time, whether we find the truths (evidence) or not, and whether we are capable of perceiving all truths. Science is continually evolving in our minds - or more accurately, in the collective minds over time. Can the great jigsaw puzzle ever be solved? That's not the aim of science, as it is proud to point out, but it argues that whatever picture we come up with, it's justified as long as it's based on the current collection of evidence - this is a philosophy. And I'm personally not satisfied with this, as a way of life. Why don't I deserve the truth in its entirety, in my lifetime? You would ask, why do I even question whether I deserve or not? I guess it's a human thing. But for me, as a person, I intuit closest to monotheism. Monotheism provides a framework where anything is possible, but bound by the belief in the Great Programmer who can do whatever he wants. It can work for anyone, regardless of their time and place; and for me as a person fortunate to live in an advanced age, I can accept evolution, because I think it's pretty robust and who am I to question how he creates the world. This for me is more liberating than having to accept whatever picture current evidence is showing - actually, I look forward to witness more development. It's also quite a comfortable position to be in; if science does show that we live in a simulation, that's OK, if it shows that we live in a multiverse, that's cool too.
  - Myrmornis 9y ago
    The thing is it's just not very interesting what you "intuit". You're free to do it, but it's of no consequence. Some things that are interesting are (1) observations of reality that allow us to choose among competing hypotheses for how reality works and what has happened in reality, and (2) such testable hypotheses.
- boneheadmed 9y ago
  Unfortunately, you can't test evolution in the same way that you can test for example if an artificial organ will function in an animal. You can only speculate about the past.
roywiggins 9y ago
The current Pope is cool with evolution. I think this is a common view, especially among religious scientists. Only some people think evolution is incompatible with divine creation.
- eric_the_read 9y ago
  Not that you're wrong, but this isn't exactly news. St Augustine, back in the late 4th century/early 5th, was "cool" with evolution, if you care to use those words: "Th[e] tree surely did not spring forth suddenly in [a mature] size and form, but rather went through a process of growth with which we are familiar. …[It] took its shape as it [gradually] developed with all its parts. … One [form of tree] comes from the other [form of tree], therefore, in succession, but both come from earth and not earth from them. Earth, then, is prior and is their source. The same is true of animals." (http://www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/st-augustine-on-evolutio.html http://www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/st-augustine-on...) While he didn't think that a new genus could arise in this way, he was pretty clearly on the right track, especially given the rather sketchy knowledge on the subject of biology in his day.
camus2 9y ago
> the inability to admit being wrong If facts work against your theories, as a scientist, there is nothing you can do. You can deny facts all you want it doesn't matter. At the end of the day the scientific community will put your theories in the trash. There is nothing to prove or to disprove with religion, it's based on faith, not on facts. If you're a christian you believe Jesus actually multiplied fishes. IF you're a muslim, you believe your prophet talked to archange Gabriel. These aren't facts. The existance of "angels" is not a fact, no more than the ability for men to multiply fishes. You can't bullshit the scientific community forever with theories that aren't backed by anything.

dang 9y ago

Please let's not have generic science vs. religion threads (a.k.a. flamewars, because that's what they turn into). This comment wasn't so bad, but it predictably led to much worse because it's impossible to say new or substantive things about anything so generic. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14508125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14508125 and marked it off-topic.