Hi <OhioChessFan>. As you may know, I have a great deal of respect for scientists and for science. IMO, science has been the most noble and beneficial of all humanity's endeavors. Most of us cannot fathom the science involved in creating our mousepads, much less the keyboard, the monitor, the computer, the internet, the medical advances, etc, etc, that we sometimes tend to take for granted. But we have all of these things because of the accumulated work of scientists.

I don't see science as an adversary to religion -- it's just that it doesn't intersect with religion. Scientists will never seek or accept a theory based on religion simply because it wouldn't be science to do so.

Science is about observing facts, and developing theories that explain those facts. That development process involves experiments that are reproducible and verifiable. Also, that development process must be guided by the facts, without any pre-conceived ideas about the theory that one 'desires' to reach. This process, therefore, cannot simply assume the authority of the Bible, or any other religious writings.

Finally, the theories developed by science are never considered to be 'proven' in any absolute sense (as in a mathematical theorem, for example). A theory might become 'well established', but there is always a possibility that a newly observed fact will arise that contradicts the theory. If that happens, theory must then give way to the fact. Newton's wonderful theories gave way to Einstein's, and now some of Einstein's theories are being challenged, and on it goes.

All of this to say:

When one theory is overruled, it isn't because the earlier scientists "lied", it's simply that science has moved on in its endless pursuit. It also doesn't mean that scientists are obliged to accept the ideas promoted by religion (e.g. "the creationists were right").

On the other hand, in the long history of battles between science and religion, it has been religion that's been forced to accept scientific conclusions. Also, it has been science that has behaved more nobly (I don't know of scientists persecuting or burning their religious opponents).

As you may know, I have a great deal of respect for scientists and for science. IMO, science has been the most noble and beneficial of all humanity's endeavors. <I will agree for the most part it's been very beneficial>

Most of us cannot fathom the science involved in creating our mousepads, much less the keyboard, the monitor, the computer, the internet, the medical advances, etc, etc, that we sometimes tend to take for granted. But we have all of these things because of the accumulated work of scientists. <Agreed>

I don't see science as an adversary to religion -- it's just that it doesn't intersect with religion. Scientists will never seek or accept a theory based on religion simply because it wouldn't be science to do so. <I'm okay with that>

Science is about observing facts, and developing theories that explain those facts. That development process involves experiments that are reproducible and verifiable. Also, that development process must be guided by the facts, without any pre-conceived ideas about the theory that one 'desires' to reach. <I agree. I believe science has failed miserably in that regard concerning the origins of the earth. Their preconceived idea that there was no act of creation is a driving and sometimes embarrassing force in their claims>

This process, therefore, cannot simply assume the authority of the Bible, or any other religious writings. <I'm okay with that>

Finally, the theories developed by science are never considered to be 'proven' in any absolute sense (as in a mathematical theorem, for example). <My botany professor in college started the first day of class by affirming that evolution was fact. Period. He's not the only person to say that, and I'm quite sure I could round up millions of college students to affirm the same claims made in their classrooms>

A theory might become 'well established', but there is always a possibility that a newly observed fact will arise that contradicts the theory. If that happens, theory must then give way to the fact. Newton's wonderful theories gave way to Einstein's, and now some of Einstein's theories are being challenged, and on it goes.

All of this to say:

When one theory is overruled, it isn't because the earlier scientists "lied", it's simply that science has moved on in its endless pursuit. <It doesn't mean that the earlier scientists "always" lied. Sometimes things happen as you describe but sometimes the lies have become so embarrassing, so impossible to defend, they are forced to discard it for the sake of appearances, unappealing as the process is>

It also doesn't mean that scientists are obliged to accept the ideas promoted by religion (e.g. "the creationists were right"). <I'm okay with that. But they are obliged to be honest. I think many fail miserably in that obligation>

On the other hand, in the long history of battles between science and religion, it has been religion that's been forced to accept scientific conclusions. <There's been plenty of backtracking on both sides. I would agree the liars have existed on the religion side too, as well as the sincerely mistaken>

Also, it has been science that has behaved more nobly (I don't know of scientists persecuting or burning their religious opponents). <There have been many horrible acts performed in the name of God and religion>

When one theory is overruled, it isn't because the earlier scientists "lied", it's simply that science has moved on in its endless pursuit. It also doesn't mean that scientists are obliged to accept the ideas promoted by religion (e.g. "the creationists were right").>

True.

<<<<<YouRang>>>>On the other hand, in the long history of battles between science and religion, it has been religion that's been forced to accept scientific conclusions. Also, it has been science that has behaved more nobly (I don't know of scientists persecuting or burning their religious opponents).>

<I believe science has failed miserably in that regard concerning the origins of the earth. Their preconceived idea that there was no act of creation is a driving and sometimes embarrassing force in their claims>

But I don't think they have a preconceived idea that there was "no act of creation". They're simply not assuming that the act of creation is exactly how Genesis (or any other religious book) describes it. For that matter, they're not even assuming that there ever was some event that could be rightfully be called "creation". In other words, they're not making assumptions about whether the universe itself is eternal or not. And this is good -- they should not be making such assumptions, right?

<My botany professor in college started the first day of class by affirming that evolution was fact. Period.>

This is simply stating that the existence of evolution has been observed to sufficient degree that there is no sound reason to doubt it.

The observed fact of evolution doesn't automatically mean that the "theory of evolution" offered as an explanation for origins of all species on earth is an observed fact. Nor does it explain the mechanism by which evolution occurs. I think a lot of the debate over evolution comes about simply from misunderstanding the difference between "fact" and "theory".

<On the other hand, in the long history of battles between science and religion, it has been religion that's been forced to accept scientific conclusions. <There's been plenty of backtracking on both sides.>>

What would you offer as an example of a scientist backtracking, in the sense that science has been forced to accept a religious view? I can't think of any, but religion has at times been forced to accept scientific views.

Of course some on the side of religion have refused, but they are considered perverse (example: http://www.geocentrism.com)

<...embarrassing...>

On a couple occasions, you refer the claims of scientists as "embarrassing". Do you mean that the scientists themselves felt embarrassed? Scientists are generally quite open to the possibility that their theories are wrong, and find no embarrassment if it turns out to be the case. That's just the nature of science. Progress is made in wrong ideas as well as right ones.

<The Chess Express><You forget that scientists have given us the most effective means of destroying ourselves and our planet. I doubt the folks over in Hiroshima would have agreed on the day the bomb was dropped.>

I do. I think most would rather parade around naked on Times Square than admit the possibility of Creation as recorded in the Bible.

<What would you offer as an example of a scientist backtracking, in the sense that science has been forced to accept a religious view? I can't think of any, but religion has at times been forced to accept scientific views. >

That isn't what I meant, specifically, though I see why you took it that way. Historically, I would suggest science did backtrack on biogenesis, though I will not force that to mean they backtracked to the religious viewpoint. They're still fighting that battle, since there's just no way to reasonably suggest life came from nonlife and call it science. Science did backtrack on the importance of handwashing and quarantine, and I will insist they did that to exactly the manner described in the Bible.

<On a couple occasions, you refer the claims of scientists as "embarrassing". Do you mean that the scientists themselves felt embarrassed? >

I would think anyone who is associated with archaeoraptor and Piltdown Man and Ida should be embarrassed. I'd hope they are.

<I don't think it's fair to hold scientists accountable for anything that people might do with their discoveries. People tend to be prideful and selfish, and this results in acts of evil. Perhaps this is where religion ought to be focusing its attention.>