What do you think of the beginning of life in light of the Scientific Method, i.e. phenomenon, hypothesis, theory, and law? 
What do you think?
-
Dr. John Nay
- Professor
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:34 am
- Location: Prescott Valley, Arizona
- Contact:
What do you think?
What do you think of the beginning of life in light of the Scientific Method, i.e. phenomenon, hypothesis, theory, and law? 
But is that not a bit risky?-
Dr. John Nay
- Professor
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:34 am
- Location: Prescott Valley, Arizona
- Contact:
Risky
I believe my question is somewhat profound, in that the Scientific Method begins with an observed phenomenon. If one does not have the observation, one can not form a scientific hypothesis. If one does not have an hypothesis under the Scientific Method, one can not have a scientific theory, as defined under the Method. Soooooooooo, I propose that the beginning of life is outside the realm of the Scientific Method and that whatever one's view relative to the beginning of life, it is a philosophical view. This includes people like myself, i.e. Christians.
for some reason, i didn't even skip a beat when i read your question. because i think i have been so well prepared in this area of discussion that i did not see the controversy in it however, that is an excellent way of stating it. it seems to be a fairly obvious conclusion if your statement of beliefs includes an absolute that god was himself the only one present at the creation of the world. i like it
however, that is an excellent way of stating it. it seems to be a fairly obvious conclusion if your statement of beliefs includes an absolute that god was himself the only one present at the creation of the world. i like it I think your question is disingenuous. The phenomena observed are:
1. existing life
2. we see evidence of changes in life forms through time.
3. as we go back in time we find simpler forms.
4. we have a fairly good handle on the mechanism of these changes
5. if we keep going back, there would seem to be a time when life began.
6. we should be able to make some hypotheses about the origin of life based on what we know about existing life, etc.
I would agree that the above is pretty basic but your statment seems to imply it is not even an area of inquiry.
1. existing life
2. we see evidence of changes in life forms through time.
3. as we go back in time we find simpler forms.
4. we have a fairly good handle on the mechanism of these changes
5. if we keep going back, there would seem to be a time when life began.
6. we should be able to make some hypotheses about the origin of life based on what we know about existing life, etc.
I would agree that the above is pretty basic but your statment seems to imply it is not even an area of inquiry.
-
Skepti Que
- Member
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:57 pm
- Location: California, USA
I did not originate this idea. I think it is worth consideration.
When scientists do science they observe events of phenomona, form hypotheses, develop theories, conduct experiments and publish the results in scientific journals. Is is just possible that the books Moses wrote are an early scientific journal? Did he observe, come up with ideas and publish those ideas for consideration by his peers? Did he couch his report in language his readers would understand according to the best knowledge they had before them?
I think if someone does a google search using terms like journal, Moses, science, and observation maybe some different combinations of those terms he might find the disccussion group where this concept was recently proposed, If all else fails add stone-Campbell to the mix.
I suppose someone will invoke the "R" word
or the "I" word.
SQ
P.S. It's nice to see a little activity here.
When scientists do science they observe events of phenomona, form hypotheses, develop theories, conduct experiments and publish the results in scientific journals. Is is just possible that the books Moses wrote are an early scientific journal? Did he observe, come up with ideas and publish those ideas for consideration by his peers? Did he couch his report in language his readers would understand according to the best knowledge they had before them?
I think if someone does a google search using terms like journal, Moses, science, and observation maybe some different combinations of those terms he might find the disccussion group where this concept was recently proposed, If all else fails add stone-Campbell to the mix.
I suppose someone will invoke the "R" word
or the "I" word.
SQ
P.S. It's nice to see a little activity here.