UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 5 to Talk Back 21
Scientific theories follow a logical path

by: Daniel Smith

Please feel free to add your thoughts to this discussion via the contact page.

I'd just like to add a little to Mark Rotchell's post. As an undergraduate photonics student (basically a physics degree that concentrates on the physics of light) I know pretty well what the assumptions of light are that they use in cosmology.

The whole idea that there is a leap of faith involved in science (in my opinion of course) comes down to the problem that most people don't understand the science completely behind the theory in question. To do this, it takes a long time for even the "clever cookie" to get a good grasp on it. What then happens is the general public has to take the "clever cookie's" word for it.

The difference between science and religion is that science is supposed to have been figured out by people where as religion was dictated from square one by some higher power (be it man or god). The only way we can tell the difference between which is which now is to follow the theories back to their origin. Scientific theories should follow some sort of logical path where as religious theories don't have to.

Yes, science makes use of assumptions or "postulates" but these are usually things which seem fundamental to the scientist who's job it is to research such things. Even so, they take the time to experiment and if the assumption is wrong then they don't use it. A classic experiment which threw back a postulate is the Michelson Morley experiment. Look it up kiddies.