No, I believe that science does not deal with proofs. Proofs are for mathematics. Theories are at the heart of science. All of science is tentative and can be overturned if a better explanation turns up. But just to be sure, I will check with Denis Lamoureux.
This has to be one of the oddest comments I have yet seen on this site. Are you suggesting that maths is not part of science? Or can you let me know why we cannot prove chemical bonds (or perhaps show that chemical bonds are tentative??!!) - or these will be overturned by a better chemical bond? To paraphrase a favourite saying amongst evolutionists, if you show the tentative nature of the quantified, core aspects, of the sciences, prepare to receive every Nobel Prize for the next 100 years.
It would be good if some on this site had a rudimentary understanding of the Philosophy of Science.
I heard back from Denis Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD
He’s the Associate Professor of Science & Religion
St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta
I asked him,
> Please confirm that science does not deal with proofs.
He replied,
> The terminology creates a lot of problem.
> Proof carries the strength of a mathematical proof.
> So, science really doesn’t deal with proofs.
> Make sense?
> d
–
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD
Associate Professor of Science & Religion
St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta
We can PROVE that if land-based Elephants, and Hippos, and T-Rex’s and Brontosaurus … and
marine-based Whales, and Plesiosaurs… if they all died together … would have had TWO possible patterns of fossil dispersal:
- Elephant and Brontosaurus fossils buried underneath the fossils of Whales and Pleisosaurs.
OR
- All the bones of all four types mixed together.
BUT . . . nowhere do we find this pattern. In fact, the GLOBAL pattern is that no large mammal bones are found anywhere with dinosaur bones … neither Whales or Elephants … and always ABOVE dinosaur bones. This is a result that could NEVER have been PREDICTED by a Young earth Creationist.
George
I would be happy if Dennis Lamourex would elaborate - the demarcation he suggest between maths and the physical sciences is a formality that scientists accept, just as we have demarcations between physics and chemistry. Thus formal logic and mathematical theorems can be discussed within this notion of proof, as an unbreakable aspect of a mathematical proof.
The facts however, show that maths is an integral part, and an essential part of the physical sciences, and we require a philosophical discussion to elucidate the formalities and notion of formal proofs, as opposed to verified (and falsified) theories of physics and chemistry.
Thus, in the context you gave regarding overwhelming evidence for evolution, and 100% proof, such terminology is misleading at best and odd at worst. For example, the length of a particular chemical bond can be calculated for a chosen molecule, to three decimal places, and can be measured to perhaps greater accuracy. This, in the context of this discussion, is a proof of that aspect of science - the maths that has provided this result, and verified experimentally, can be considered as proven,
If Denis Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD disagrees with this, I would be happy to debate the matter with him.
It is in this context that your naïve statements about evolution and evidence are misleading, as you imply that observations in evolutionary work have the same status as proven aspects of the physical sciences.
Hi.
My personal opinion is that generally ‘proof’ can mean different things to different people at different times. I have often had people suggest that I cannot prove that God exists. Scientifically, this might be true, but the proof I have is enough for me. There are many areas in science (including maths) that can be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. But there will always be those that choose to disbelieve it - for instance, those who do not believe in a physical existence at all. And there are areas in science that we are not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Some will take them as so certain as to be ‘proof’ while others will continue to be uncertain at best. So the term ‘proof’ (often just like the term ‘fact’) can be quite a flexible and personal thing - whether or not it should.
Matt
i dont think so. i think that we indeed can prove that god exist. for example: we know that something complex like a motor need a designer. we found such a motor in nature called bacterial flagellum. so we know that nature made by designer. even if its small and have a self replicating system.
see also this article:
Perhaps one way to illustrate the difference I have tried to show in these exchanges (between what aspects of science may be considered as proven) is the following quote from: “Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology” by Denis Noble, in Experimental Physiology, 31 march 2013; “Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka and Lamb 2005; Noble 2006; Beurton, Falk et al. 2008; Pigliucci and Müller 2010; Gissis and Jablonka 2011; Noble 2011; Shapiro 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven. Moreover, they have been disproven in ways that raise the tantalising prospect of a totally new synthesis: one that would allow a re-integration of physiological science with evolutionary biology.”
I would regard such language as “loose” since if something in science has been proven, it is unlikely to be subsequently disproven. It would be correct to say, instead, that much of the current evolutionary theory(s) have been shown to be inadequate and biologists are currently debating ways that may provide a more adequate theory for their work.
Certainly math is vital in the sciences. But still, science doesn’t try to prove anything. Theories can be overturned.
In general I would agree with you. And there are many other examples. However, there are many people who would disagree with the idea that this is ‘proof’. If we are so determined that our own worldview is correct, we can, even subconsciously, overlook obvious evidences. Take a look at the atheistic evolutionary world view written up in the Wikipedia page on the flagellum. Let’s just say, further proof may be needed.
Matt
Absolutely agree.
Yes, God is very good at finding ways to sicken us. And the poor, the weak, the very young and the very old suffer the most.
I don’t believe that God deliberately creates things that are especially harmful to the most vulnerable.
While unlike Denis, I only have one Ph.D. I agree with him. (as I usually do). In science disproof is not that hard, while proof is very rare. It isnt hard to disprove a hypothesis. So neo Darwinism (if defined as the theory that all evolutionary changes result from the slow accumulation of random point mutations in coding genes) can be disproven, as Noble claims, if we find instances where that is not the case.
However proving any theory is very difficult and takes a lot of time. Chemical bonds are a poor example, because they are a fact, not a theory. On the other hand the molecular orbital theory of chemical bonds was quite controversial for a long time, before it was accepted. And, like all theories it has undergone continuous improvement. The same is true for evolution. It is 100% true, but the details are not complete. When they are, and when enough time has gone by to allow for alternative theories to be tested (there are none at the moment, at least no scientific ones) then it will be proven.
We are entering into a odd area - I began by stating a distinction between formal mathematical proofs, and matters that can be proven by science. I then added the need for a philosophy of science to examine theories and general treatments in the sciences, and it is in this area that we may have meaningful discussions regarding the nature and robust development of general theories of science.
To now use facts as opposed to proofs is an odd addition to this argument. A fact may be the length of say, a C-H bond; a proof is the clear and unambiguous identification of chemical bonds per se. The theory of chemical bonding has taken a long time to be fully developed, but at no time was the nature of the chemical bond been controversial (unless you go before atoms and molecules were understood) - that is chemical bonds involve electrons shared between atoms to form the various chemical bonds in molecules.
It is nonsense to then consider evolution in the same way. Even proponents of (I would say Darwinian evolution, but even here terms become vague and slippery) evolution admit to its failures and many changes. If you want to use the analogy of chemical bonds for an odd argument for evolution, you would need to show that the idea of electrons forming bonds is vague and often shown to be incorrect. This has never happened. Thus we can accept the nature of chemical bonds to be proven by science. The theoretical treatment of chemical bonds may occur at relatively simple levels, and progress to ab initio QM treatments. These theories are robust and with increasing computing power, have been applied to ever more difficult areas. The maths that is an integral part of these treatments is subject to the same treatment as any other robust theory in science.
So again I add my general comment in this exchange - we have an odd and naïve discussion of proofs in science, and it appears to me, motivated by a need to bolster the semantics of evolution. This smacks of defending an ideology and in the process making science appear murky.
Can you define ‘evolution’ here. Are you talking about adaptation, i.e. small changes in existing traits, or creation of completely new traits, i.e. changing from one type of organism into a completely different one with brand new traits for that organism?
Matt
Rom 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
[TRANSLATION: God does not love everyone.]
Rom 9:14
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
[TRANSLATION: You are forbidden from criticizing God for not loving everyone.]
Rom 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
[TRANSLATION: He tells Moses that he doesn’t love everyone.]
Rom 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
[TRANSLATION: It is not up to man’s efforts, but God’s grace that some our loved.]
Rom 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
[TRANSLATION: God arranges that some people are doomed to show God’s power.]
Rom 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
[TRANSLATION: God will destroy some humans who cannot resist him.]
Rom 9:19
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
[TRANSLATION: Since no one resists God’s will, why does God blame us?]
Rom 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[TRANSLATION: Just because it is logical to “reply” against God … you don’t have the right to.]
Rom 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
[TRANSLATION A Potter makes what he needs with clay.]
Rom 9:22
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
[TRANSLATION God is like a potter.]
MORAL OF THE STORY: Romans 9 says God deliberately creates people (completely vulnerable to God’s volition) that suffer harm from how they are created.
From the viewpoint of Theodicy . . . God is the author of human suffering. And you don’t have the right to complain
1 Like
Both. For the first instance, it is well established that Dawinian natural selection works for making “small changes in existing traits” or what is called micro evolution. In fact it is so well established (at a level of 100% among scientists) that even young earth creationists agree that this is true. I dont know of anyone who doesnt. As for the second instance, the innovation of new trraits, (which does not involve changing from one type of organism into another one. That is a creationist mythical strawman. Nobody ever said that happens), the general theory of evolution in its neo Darwinian form may not (I happen to think it does not, but the consensus is not yet complete) fully explain such transitions, or even their timing.
But, natural selection is still part of the picture, the problem is understanding the mechanism of variation creation, which cannot be simply slow accumulation of random point mutations in structural genes. (neo Darwinism). As I said there is currently a split in evolutionary biology between the neo Darwinians and those who think a far more complex set of mechanisms are involved in innovation. But whatever the final consensus turns out to be, it will still be evolution.
1 Like