tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post4666079827261923627..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: Scientific Theories Change: So how can science be trusted? (and comparison with biblical interpretation) Michael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-68242545432942396402018-07-24T10:37:41.407-05:002018-07-24T10:37:41.407-05:00See what actually historians say about this in art...See what actually historians say about this in articles like http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages. Yes, the development of modern science occurred in a Christian culture where early scientists thought they were learning about an intelligent and rational God.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-59107744181987166002018-07-19T19:06:23.848-05:002018-07-19T19:06:23.848-05:00Wait... he opens with the patently false claim tha...Wait... he opens with the patently false claim that "science... was born out of Christianity..." and your response is "You are totally correct"? <br /><br />I wish I could say I was surprised.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01244690542199902934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-35803162486469923952017-11-05T14:48:39.439-06:002017-11-05T14:48:39.439-06:00Based on your comment, I have added a new tab to m...Based on your comment, I have added a new tab to my blog with my speaking schedule. I'll try to keep it updated as much as possible. I won't post venues that are not open to the public like high schools which I do a lot, but you should see a variety of universities and churches, at least several times during the year. Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-27428166386835702492017-10-16T18:10:56.984-05:002017-10-16T18:10:56.984-05:00Well said Dr. Strauss. Thank you for continuing to...Well said Dr. Strauss. Thank you for continuing to writing this blog. I didn't know you spoke at churches as well as universities about this stuff (I've only ever watched youtube videos from university seminars). I think both are invaluable public services. Thank you for that too. The need for both is impossibly important today.Stetson Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12697583852025293333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-83724956809486902922017-10-15T15:31:48.849-05:002017-10-15T15:31:48.849-05:00Interestingly in The Road to Reality the author st...Interestingly in The Road to Reality the author states that Popper's proposal or axiom that a valid theory must have a way in which it can be falsified is too stringent and not applicable in the current state of cosmology and its mathematical underpinnings. Is the original axiom grounds for dismissing a theory which is the definition of a change.Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219283160015859565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-48216055822680013552017-10-14T19:04:25.064-05:002017-10-14T19:04:25.064-05:00You are correct in that many of the scientific &qu...You are correct in that many of the scientific "theories" that changed didn't have any real observational evidence to back them up in the first place.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-67886363356970500172017-10-14T19:03:05.931-05:002017-10-14T19:03:05.931-05:00You are totally correct. Much of Andrew Dickson Wh...You are totally correct. Much of Andrew Dickson White's book is no longer considered valid by modern historians, yet his thesis remains and many people accept it despite the fact that it is grounded on much that has been discredited.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-65909058794590258212017-10-14T11:01:17.201-05:002017-10-14T11:01:17.201-05:00Before claiming the scientific method has a proble...Before claiming the scientific method has a problem because scientific theories changed, first one should evaluate if how the changed scientific theory was determined as correct in the first place. Perhaps the scientific method wasn’t properly applied in the first place such as some speculative assumptions were made or all the possible alternative explanation were not ruled out. Fundamentally what should be critiqued are the basic criterion and principles in the scientific method. <br /><br />“Rational Reasoning for Reality” found at my webpage https://sites.google.com/site/s2hinrichs/home explains principals used in the scientific method. A basic criterion and principles in the scientific method is the use of the process of elimination with a goal to perhaps get to the point of eliminating all possible explanation except one implying the one remaining must be true. Use of this principal involves critical thinking where basically one does everything they can do to prove a theory wrong. It is not until after this is done that the scientist considers claiming the theory is correct. It makes sense before believing something is true to do your due diligence to check if it is false. Often people will tend to just build up defenses for maintaining their personal beliefs, rather than rigorously investigating if they are false. <br /><br />Fundamentally the scientific principal do not assume there is no supernatural; however, according to Okman’s razor the theory with the least presuppositions is preferred; thus, naturally it is assumed the supernatural did not intervene unless shown otherwise.<br /><br />Personally I do have a preference that God exist, so I do have a bias in believe the supernatural exist. However, for a religious person who respect science, I think they would follow this guideline for their religious beliefs or for any belief. For anything theory for which according to science there is strong and solid evidence that it is true, all of one’s beliefs must be consistent with this theory. One should not believe anything theory for which according to science there is strong and solid evidence that it is false.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698667617778304372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-58679940696654479642017-10-14T04:47:16.187-05:002017-10-14T04:47:16.187-05:00Dr. Strauss,
Science, since it was born out of Ch...Dr. Strauss,<br /> Science, since it was born out of Christianity, and even offers much evidence in support of Christian claims, 'should be' one of the Christians best apologetic resources. Yet, atheists, in their attempt to hijack science from its Theological moorings, have falsely tried to claim that science and Christianity are at odds. This has been going on for a couple of centuries now and is referred to as the 'warfare thesis'. It is a false revisionist history.<br /><br />The Two Guys to Blame for the Myth of Constant Warfare between Religion and Science - February 27, 2015<br />Excerpt: Timothy Larsen, a Christian historian who specializes in the nineteenth century, notes:<br />The so-called “war” between faith and learning, specifically between orthodox Christian theology and science, was manufactured during the second half of the nineteenth century. It is a construct that was created for polemical purposes.<br />No one deserves more blame for this stubborn myth than these two men:<br />Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the founding president of Cornell University, and<br />John William Draper (1811-1882), professor of chemistry at the University of New York.<br />http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/02/27/the-two-guys-to-blame-for-the-myth-of-constant-warfare-between-religion-and-science/ <br /><br /> In my latest video, the atheists' attempt to falsely define science as being confined solely to 'methodological naturalism', and the failings of that 'confinement', are discussed.<br /><br />A Critique of Methodological Naturalism and Natural Selection - video<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izyvj7L-es8bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-16608777798511463202017-10-11T10:59:02.353-05:002017-10-11T10:59:02.353-05:00Mike, Intriguing post for sure. One extension woul...Mike, Intriguing post for sure. One extension would be to illustrate departure from best practices for each discipline. Perhaps medicine best illustrates the efficacious nature of change. No one wants to return to diagnosis methods prior to germ theory or restarting bleeding.<br /><br />I do have issues with science when it goes off on a tangent as in string theories or multiverses where not even experimental methods of observation can be effected. And while I start from the plain language approach I also get it...the scriptures are replete with non-literal tools of literature so care must be taken. Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219283160015859565noreply@blogger.com