photo credit: nasa.gov
creationsciences.com
Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.
One of the first things that has to be discussed is the word “science.” I don’t think there is any room for anyone misunderstanding as to what the word “creation” means. However, the word science seems to cause much more difficulty for the average person when it comes to understanding.
Therefore, it makes sense to first go to the dictionary for the definition of this much abused word Science.
The Science Council provides the quality assurance system for those working in science throughout the European Union. They set the standards for professional registration for practicing scientists and science technicians across all scientific disciplines. Through their Licensed Bodies they admit to their registered scientists and science technicians who meet their competence and conduct requirements and commit to Continuing Professional Development. Those scientists who reach the required standards are recognized by the following designations CSci, RSci, CSciTeach, and RSciTech. (The Science Council is the competent authority of the European Union.)
The Science Council defines Science as:
”Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence:
Objective observation.
Measurement and data
(possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment
and / or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction:
reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical Analysis
Verification and Testing:
critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment”
The definition of the noun science from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: “knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world, based on facts that, for example, you can prove by experiments.”
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines Science as:
“knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”
”The word ‘science’ has its root in the Latin word ‘scientia.’ This is “knowledge based on
demonstrable
and
reproducible
data.”
In keeping with this definition, science must have measurable results using testing and analysis.”
Science is based on facts, not our opinions and preferences. The whole concept of science has been developed to challenge unproven ideas through research.
According to the website livescience.com, “the steps of the scientific method go something like this:
Make an observation or observations
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis
a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions;
accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.
“Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method, Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science.“
Based on the above definitions of science, it’s obvious for something to be claimed as “scientific” it must be proven using established principles, procedures, and is capable of being proven through use of the “Scientific Method.” Observing the steps in the scientific method it becomes very clear that there are established procedures that must be followed for a theory to move from theory to scientific fact. Simply because a theory can be made to “seem” reasonable or be the best “explanation” available does not qualify that theory to be called “scientific fact! Making some assumptions and then performing mathematical calculations based on those assumptions does not “prove” anything. It merely goes to show that the researchers or scientists are able to competently perform math calculations. The important point is that the scientific assumptions, calculations, and results must be observed and can be shown to actually result in what is hypothesized. Accurate mathematics do not equate to scientific proof.
Please consider buying something through the merchant links presented here on this site as this will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. Thank you.
The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.
Scientists say that the earth is billions of years old, but it seems like you believe that the earth is much younger. What makes you believe you are qualified to dispute the scientists?
Thanks for commenting John. Scientists are very good at researching known phenomena and performing complex mathematical calculations. However, they are outside their element when they start making assumptions about what may or may not occur in the future or what may have happened in the past. They are perfectly capable and well trained to hypothesize about what they believe may have occurred in the past. But, unless their hypothesis can be proven scientifically, as I discussed in this blog, their theories must remain just that theories. My qualifications are that I am reasonably intelligent and am very capable of using logic and reason to deal with complex theories. My theories and beliefs are just as valid as those of scientists. Scientists are more qualified than me to be able to prove a theory, but I am very capable of scrutinizing what they present as proof. It must meet the criteria of the scientific method as I also discussed in this blog. I hope this answers your question John.
Thanks for stopping by,
Jeff