"A theory in science is an explanation of the observation"

You betcha! You got it right and that's why there is universal agreement on space/time and alternate universes.

Wait there is no agreement among scientist, but there have been several theories floated out promoting alternate universes to explain phenomenon in our own universe, and Theories showing it doesn't exist. Here is an interesting article about just that.

I have said a couple of times now that I'm a science kind of guy. I believe in evolution, and the Big Bang, and 2+2=4. I also believe that science can't answer everything, and as more and more knowledge is gained the more questions scientist have.

Theories are excepted until some of part of the puzzle makes scientist reexamine what was once excepted as "Law"

Now let's talk about "evolution" Here is another interesting article by a Rebeca Keller who holds a PHD in Chemistry.

 On Sunday, Aug. 28, the Albuquerque Journal paraphrased me as saying, "Scientists err by being unwilling to consider the possibility that some sort of transcendent being is responsible."
    The Journal acknowledges that this misrepresented my actual words. In fact, it is opposite to what I really think. I don't believe that looking for a transcendent being, or God, or little green men is in the purview of good science.
    However, being willing to consider a design inference, if the data point in that direction, is good science regardless of the philosophical or religious implications.
    No scientist should ever be so committed to an ideology, whether that ideology is religious or philosophical in nature, that it blinds him to possible interpretations of scientific data. That happened in Galileo's time and it is happening today whenever people close their eyes and plug their ears to design inferences in biology.
    Living things are incredibly complex. Even on the microscopic scale each cell is literally packed with interacting networks of molecular machines. It looks designed. If it looks designed, how can it be unscientific to wonder if that design is real?
    It is understandable that people are concerned about the metaphysical implications; if there is design then there must be a designer.
    But the basic trouble, and the underlying reason this controversy never ends, is that evolution is a creation story; it has huge metaphysical implications no matter how it is taught. How is it less religious or less controversial to teach evolution as it is now, pretending that we somehow know that there is no design?
    The only way to be religiously neutral on a subject such as evolution is to acknowledge what we know and what we don't know. Virtually all of our students come into class knowing that evolution is controversial. Pretending it's not, passing off students' questions with patronizing non-answers, or pretending "science" really knows that there is no design in biology is certainly not good educational practice.

That's some shit there, a scientist actually saying we don't know everything but as scientist we need to follow the data were it leads us, and even then we might well be wrong.

I realize "Deep Thought" took 7.5 million years to give us the simple answer to the ultimate question, but now we are engaged in the process of figuring out what is the ultimate question.

We know the answer is 42, but a fat lot of good that does us.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 03/23/2008 05:22:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]