Science: Facts Making Theories or Theories Making Facts? Are scientists using the facts to form the theories of science or are they making theories then hoping that the facts fit the theory? If the facts do not fit, does science pursue the facts and the root of the facts searching for truth or do scientists ignore the facts if they do not fit and instead pursue to prove their theories by other means? Science has always been a field where the inquisitive may go to seek truth and to pursue answers to the questions that only the courageous are willing to ask. For example: “where did we come from?” Despite the different answers that have arisen, none have been so strongly seized as the answer of evolution. It has been grasped so tightly that
…show more content…
As an apparent proponent of ID, the first point that Stein makes is to argue against evolution by taking a look at cells and the argument of irreducible design. Where would the information in our genes and cells have come from if there was not a designer back at the very beginning? Because of the need for both DNA and RNA and all of their accompanying proteins to appear at one time, we must deduce that they had to have all appeared at once. Even taking an argument as simple as the aforementioned, why are we not allowed to even debate the thoughts? The second anybody speaks about the thought of intelligent design, whether they believe it or not, they are put on an “expelled” list and are hunted after continuously or even worse, ignored and buried. Their careers are dashed, their friends abandon them, and they are now no longer considered serious scientists or reporters. What is so taboo about mentioning a thought to be discussed? Why cannot we challenge the norm? This is exactly what Darwin did when he proposed the thought of evolution. He was challenging the current thoughts of the day and in doing so he brought about great leaps in science from what followed after. So why are not the believers of ID allowed the same freedoms? Again, regarding this topic, science does not look …show more content…
If nothing new is allowed to arise, then how will there ever be growth? Why cannot we question and challenge those who have seized control and are dictating just what can and cannot be asked and said? If science was in the same state that it is now, then 160 years ago when Darwin presented his ideas (if they were not the foundation of science belief now) he never would have even been given the chance to because it challenged the status quo.
I simply believe that if science is to remain a wholesome place for thinking, for advancements, and for discoveries, then the same courtesy that was extended to the scientists of the past should continue on and be passed on to the scientists of today: the freedom to question. To take it even one step further: to display the evidence for what it is and not for what we hoped it would be to support our theories. Rather let us let the evidence speak for itself instead of using it to speak/support what we decide it
As an apparent proponent of ID, the first point that Stein makes is to argue against evolution by taking a look at cells and the argument of irreducible design. Where would the information in our genes and cells have come from if there was not a designer back at the very beginning? Because of the need for both DNA and RNA and all of their accompanying proteins to appear at one time, we must deduce that they had to have all appeared at once. Even taking an argument as simple as the aforementioned, why are we not allowed to even debate the thoughts? The second anybody speaks about the thought of intelligent design, whether they believe it or not, they are put on an “expelled” list and are hunted after continuously or even worse, ignored and buried. Their careers are dashed, their friends abandon them, and they are now no longer considered serious scientists or reporters. What is so taboo about mentioning a thought to be discussed? Why cannot we challenge the norm? This is exactly what Darwin did when he proposed the thought of evolution. He was challenging the current thoughts of the day and in doing so he brought about great leaps in science from what followed after. So why are not the believers of ID allowed the same freedoms? Again, regarding this topic, science does not look …show more content…
If nothing new is allowed to arise, then how will there ever be growth? Why cannot we question and challenge those who have seized control and are dictating just what can and cannot be asked and said? If science was in the same state that it is now, then 160 years ago when Darwin presented his ideas (if they were not the foundation of science belief now) he never would have even been given the chance to because it challenged the status quo.
I simply believe that if science is to remain a wholesome place for thinking, for advancements, and for discoveries, then the same courtesy that was extended to the scientists of the past should continue on and be passed on to the scientists of today: the freedom to question. To take it even one step further: to display the evidence for what it is and not for what we hoped it would be to support our theories. Rather let us let the evidence speak for itself instead of using it to speak/support what we decide it