Explaining The World Vs. Changing The World

Advertisement

Editor:

The Payson Roundup usually favors local interest opinions and that makes sense to me. Recently the interest in spiritual vs. scientific controversies is not as insular. Look at the debate from a different direction look i.e. how science has impacted your life:

Engineers using science have given us cars, cell phones, plentiful food, big nice bombs, sports on TV — really a lot of stuff. We have electricity from APS, air travel and genetically altered seeds from Monsanto.

The impact of the church down the street has been mostly giving comfort and hope for our next life. I also like to believe the churches encourage right choices and try to point us in the right direction.

I don’t personally have many answers, but one test of a theory is to make predictions that come true and science is on a roll in that regard. While religion is explaining the world, science is changing the world.

Phon D Sutton

Comments

H. Wm. Rhea III 1 year, 8 months ago

Why do so many people lump science and technology together? Technology is proven, there is no theory, something works or it doesn't. Science is based on theory that scientists try to prove as laws.

For some it might be a matter of semantics, but technology is simply a better mouse trap while science investigates why and what happens to the mouse when it enters the trap!

0

Pete Greer 1 year, 8 months ago

It is very interesting to see how different people see the discussion mentioned in Phon's letter. My contention is that Creation science is as scientific as Darwin's Theory of Evolution and that Darwin's Theory of Evolution requires as much faith in the unseen as any religion and therefore it is just as religious as Creation science. Scientists from both camps do observational science by the scientific method and must interpret events in the past through the lens of the assumptions determined by their particular world view. Biblical Creationists do point to the Bible as their beginning point for interpreting the past. This is no more religious than an evolutionist pointing to Darwin's writings as their beginning point for interpreting the past. You have to have faith that truth lies in the writings of the one in whom you believe. Concerning the area of observational science, both groups do science the same. Believing in a Creator does not hinder a scientist one bit. The following is a short list from the many scientists who have done groundbreaking work in various scientific fields and also had faith in a Creator God. Most of these lived before Darwin published The Origin of Species. Johann Kepler, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Rudolf Virchow, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell. and Gregor Mendel. These men laid the foundation for many fields of science including a proper understanding of some of the very things that started the technological revolution, which you rightly declared, impacts our lives in so many ways. My hope is that this response further clarifies where the real debate has been. It has not been religion vs science but it has been whether Creation science should be taught in the classrooms of our public schools along with Darwin's Theory of Evolution as was proposed by SB1213 several weeks ago.

0

don evans 1 year, 8 months ago

Oh for those good old days when the scientist of their time said the world was flat... the earth was the center of the universe...and the Sun revolved around the Earth.

0

H. Wm. Rhea III 1 year, 8 months ago

The Earth isn't the center of the universe - I am! From me in every direction is infinity, hence, I must be the center of the universe.

Okay, that was just a joke to lighten the mood.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.