Every time one has a look on the  methods to prove science, one would think that believing in God is not as silly as it seems.

Error Confidence

How does modern science providing the evidence of one's theory? By using the formula on the experiment with error confidence and it's not 100%. Even so, science people would happily accept the result if it could be proved by others.

Why would people still accept a science fact despite the error it might carry? I think there are two things that made that: 1) the deviation of error is little enough that it could be neglected; and that's because 2) no human-made machine known to the modern world could have precision of infinite.

Then how you justify that the science is right?

Science would relaxed the evidence with error confidence. But, it put a strict rule: the experiments should be repeated by other fellow scientists. Fellow scientists then verify his/her experiments are applicable and then approve that science.

I wish people would also do the same with the scripture. They would take some time for devotions and try to experience themselves with God. Doing this by not neglecting any single requirement.

A Missing Link Argument

Take an instance of modern belief that people are from apes. Despite there is no hard evidence, modernists would have a faith that it does correctly proven. They would say that because of the pattern found on the fossils led to evolution. There are hard evidences that would deny all the creationists that bashing on it.

True, when we say evolution exists, none should try to refute that. At least it is compatible with my faith in Christianity. In my knowledge of the Bible, there is no such thing against it. Moreover, there would be hints that God nourishing evolution. Even salvation itself is evolving around the Bible.

Now, the real problem is when people take it too far by saying that if we believe in evolution, then we too believe that man also from the evolution of the ape. This is also hardened with the existence of evidences here and there that would create a path of human evolution.

The only reason why human evolutionist could never win is because no matter what they want to apply the science, the evidence link was missing somewhere in the chain. Still, we believe that someday evidence would be found.

We apply the math of series of number about that. You know, the math of series, when you have a series of consecutive number, you could predict its pattern and we can tell what the n-th number is. Even if we don't have the n-th evidence between the human and the ape, we could trust that there would be that n-th that buried somewhere.

One problem thought, there is a different between series of number and series of ape to human transformation.

Number is defined within a constraint and built by the rule of a certain domain: the Real number set/string. The Real number has its operator defined. Its just like this:

We define a basic {0,1}, then we define plus operator. We then define that plus operator would always produce the result in the set. So, in order to have it consistent, we would define "2" as the result of "1 + 1". Thus, the number set is now {0,1,2}.

The process is repeated infinitely and thus numbers are put in the set. Repeat the process with negative operator, divide operator, and multiply operator. Voila, you would have the Real number set. Some funky science then add a funky operator like root operator. It gave birth to Imaginary number set.

In this approach, the number, it is us the human that sets it. It's there because we define it. It is our convenience tool for describing a sum of something. If we too want to be funky, we can create another number set and create new definition of operator. Don't know, though, if it's recognized by others. :)

We don't define nature as we define numbers. We study nature in order to understand its behavior. If we said that the number is always there, not true for nature. We can't say that there would be unicorn born from horse and zebra with rainbow. We would say that unicorn is exist because we found its fossil.

We can't say that human is from ape before we have the framework; 1) complete the links; 2) sets the explanation for each evolution; and 3) prove it. Yet, some take it so far that it would be the definitive solution of telling human existence.

This is what I call favoritism. Just like when Linux kernel developer would have EXT4 in their mainstream kernel but rejects Reiser4. Both are not proven ready for inclusion, yet EXT4 since alpha is there in the kernel tree.

Just because ape to human evolution is born based on evolution theory which from modern western wisdom, it is accepted as the truth. While it is approved and being taught in schools, the alternative theory such as creationism is neglected and considered as myth. While both, the modern human evolution theory and creationism is both not proven.

I wish that text book in Biology would state the truth that the modern evolution is not proven. It is a in-progress theory that the creationism is not yet to be debunked completely.

Ceteris Paribus

To understand how things works, we often have to isolate the problem.

Argh, this is getting too long,tl;dr
F = sum of all forces.

Means, there is two problem: You could never isolate anything from nature without interference (no matter how little those interferences). Second, the result then should be approximation that depends to the world is not changing, which it is a dynamic.

Science depends on the nature. While this universe is changing, some common rule may stay, but some would change. Then, science would fix the model again and again and again.

That means what you believe now as a hard science may be revised by a better solution someday. Even science is evolving based on new findings and better theories. As if that's not dramatic enough, some science also found out that it would revert its finding to an older idea.

Science is open to contribution, except from religion and old Chinese medication.

Of course, this is because science should be about questioning everything and proving everything. We can't just trust anything. That would lead to fallacy. But, to reject the idea of miracle without debunking it first is also fallacy.

Science should also question not only religion and traditional methods, it should also question itself. That's the way of being neutral and being objective.

But, hey, that would be too hard, eh?

It is easier to say the other is fallacy and ours is right based on that we have the right method historically and they don't. Don't bother to prove the competing alternatives. Don't bother to separate emotion from religion to find the the hard truth.

I wish science be bothered enough. I have the confidence to say that I have the right God to believe. This is subjective, I know, and the objective part should be the scientific person that take his/her pride in proving God is not exists. But, at least they should prove before take hasty decision by dismissing God.

I'm getting bored. Sorry, I'll stop here now. I think three is enough.


Popular Posts