quote:

---

Your making a mistake comparing electicity to the big bang. There's a very big difference between something that all evidence overwhelmingly supports and something that's one of several possible solutions, and whose the merits are still being hashed out and refined.

You hear very little debate about electricity.

---

quote:

---

My first year chemistry teacher's reply to this "Science doesn't prove anything" thing was simply, "Of course I can't prove to you that this is true, but you'd better convince yourself that it is before the exam comes around."

---

Thats the point. Science doesn't prove anything, but if its theory its as good as proven. Its as close as science can come. Some theories have more evidense than others yes, but they all have a whole lot of evidense.
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
Blast you Bob for deleting that post...
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Yes and no. We're getting back to the fact that not all theories were created equally. If you're trying to tell me that The Big Bang is as widely studied, supported, and accepted as electric potential, I'm going to laugh at you.

Edit: Which isn't to say that I don't think the big bang happened, nor that I think this insistance that's it's always mentioned in the same breath as the word "theory" isn't grating, but if you're going to be arguing about the application of science, you're better served to check your hyperbole at the door.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

So my message to the uber religious folks who want to do away with science like evolution and the big bang is this (not aimed at any one at hatrack): You want to do that, fine. But you better chuck your electric power too. Electricity is just another scientific theory. And dump your computers, they run on electricity. And your air conditioning/heating. Better not go to hospitals or take medicine from doctors, all scientific theories. Oh and better walk or ride horses.

---

quote:

---

Hypothesis
- a statement that uses a few observations
- an idea based on observations without experimental proof
Theory
- uses many observations and has loads of experimental proof
- can be applied to unrelated facts and new relationships
- flexible enough to be modified if new data/proof introduced
Law
- stands the test of time, often without change
- experimentally proven over and over
- can create true predictions for different situations
- has uniformity and is universal

---

quote:

---

A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

---

quote:

---

A question: What society doesn't (or didn't) have scientists?

---

quote:

---

f you're trying to tell me that The Big Bang is as widely studied, supported, and accepted as electric potential, I'm going to laugh at you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celaeno:
A question: What society doesn't (or didn't) have scientists?

---

quote:

---

Possibly you are thinking of engineers

---

*cough* In that past engineers and scientists went there own way. Today they are often very closely linked. Engineers just take the things scientists come up with with practical uses and make use of them.
 

---

Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

A question: What society doesn't (or didn't) have scientists?

---

Ancient Greece. While they many smart guys, I don't see how you could call any of them scientists.

---

quote:

---

except for calling engineers "rabble".

---

*raises a glass to MPH* Hear, hear
 

---

Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
 
Once more, please classify Democritus. I would call him a scientist.

Or if not Democritus, what about Archimedes?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Um. Aristotle?

Science sprung from philosophy. I would call most of the ancient philosophers scientists.

---

quote:

---

what about Archimedes?

---

quote:

---

Archimedes is probably also the first mathematical physicist on record, and the best before Galileo and Newton. He invented the field of statics, enunciated the law of the lever, the law of equilibrium of fluids and the law of buoyancy. (He famously discovered the latter when he was asked to determine whether a crown had been made of pure gold, or gold adulterated with silver; he realized that the rise in the water level when it was immersed would be equal to the volume of the crown, and the decrease in the weight of the crown would be in proportion; he could then compare those with the values of an equal weight of pure gold). He was the first to identify the concept of center of gravity, and he found the centers of gravity of various geometric figures, assuming uniform density in their interiors, including triangles, paraboloids, and hemispheres. Using only ancient Greek geometry, he also gave the equilibrium positions of floating sections of paraboloids as a function of their height, a feat that would be taxing to a modern physicist using calculus.

---

quote:

---

A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

---

quote:

---

The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.

---

quote:

---

Archimedes (Greek: Αρχιμηδης ) (287 BC–212 BC) was an ancient Greek mathematician, physicist, engineer, astronomer and philosopher born in the seaport colony of Syracuse. He is considered by some math historians to be one of history's greatest mathematicians.

---

quote:

---

I hesitate to use the expression, but...


...owned.

---

quote:

---

...in science, everything is a theory.

Except the very few laws. Everything else is labeled theory.

---

quote:

---

There is a key difference between philosophers/ancient thinkers and scientists: scientists run experiments to test their ideas. The ancient philosophers did not.

---

quote:

---

It is widely accepted in the scientific and historical communities that the ancient philosophers were not scientists

---

quote:

---

It is widely accepted in the scientific and historical communities that the ancient philosophers were not scientists. They were philosophers, great mathematicians and thinkers and were prescientists. But they were not scientists. They did not experiment or test their ideas in any way. They merely observed and hypothesized. That is part of science, but not all of it. And they were frequently very very wrong.

---

quote:

---

Does it not occur to anyone that perhaps the reason some people stress THEORY is because so many people incorrectly treat those theories as laws?

---

quote:

---

The fact of the matter is, we know a hell of a lot more about the Big Bang than the average person suspects.

---

quote:

---

That's the point. Except you reversed it. There are very very very few laws. I can't even call one to mind.

---

quote:

---

There is a key difference between philosophers/ancient thinkers and scientists: scientists run experiments to test their ideas. The ancient philosophers did not.

---

quote:

---

And yes an engineer applies scientific principles but is not a scientist.

---

quote:

---

It is widely accepted in the scientific and historical communities that the ancient philosophers were not scientists.

---

quote:

---

(287–212 BC). The first scientist to recognize and use the power of the lever was Archimedes. This gifted Greek mathematician and inventor once said, “Give me a place to stand and rest my lever on, and I can move the Earth.” He also invented the compound pulley and Archimedes'screw. Archimedes was a brilliant mathematician who helped develop the science of geometry. He discovered the relation between the surface area and volume of a sphere and those of its circumscribing cylinder. (See also Geometry; Mechanics.)

---

quote:

---

They were philosophers, great mathematicians and thinkers and were prescientists. But they were not scientists. They did not experiment or test their ideas in any way. They merely observed and hypothesized.

---

quote:

---

quote:There is a key difference between philosophers/ancient thinkers and scientists: scientists run experiments to test their ideas. The ancient philosophers did not.

According to Sam's personal (and referenced) definitions of "scientist" and "engineering," the ancient thinkers in question were, in fact, scientists. While I recognize that your argument is also true based on your own definitions, what makes Sam's far more convincing are references.

If you could offer a definition from a reasonably credible source that a scientist is ONLY a person who, in addition to meeting the aforementioned requirements, performs experiments, you'd be more convincing.

quote:It is widely accepted in the scientific and historical communities that the ancient philosophers were not scientists

...proof? This certainly hasn't held true amongst the members of the scientific community I'm familiar with, which includes four members of the lead malaria research team at the UW Medical Center. They would laugh uproariously at your suggestion that the ancient thinkers in question were not scientists.

quote:It is widely accepted in the scientific and historical communities that the ancient philosophers were not scientists. They were philosophers, great mathematicians and thinkers and were prescientists. But they were not scientists. They did not experiment or test their ideas in any way. They merely observed and hypothesized. That is part of science, but not all of it. And they were frequently very very wrong.

Not a part of modern science, but would you call Greek soldiers "pre-soldiers" because their military training didn't include modern day standards?

---

quote:

---

A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

---

quote:

---

Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism – aimed at finding out the truth.

...

Most scientists feel that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge under the working assumption of methodological materialism, which explains observable events in nature by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.

---

quote:

---

I can't even call one to mind.

---

quote:

---

Alternately take a look in any high school history book or science book. Go to the section on the history of science and you will see the early philosophers called just that, philosophers. To be a scientist, you must practice the scientific method, which is hypothesize, come up with a way to test it, then test it. Tests are done through experiments or studies.

---

quote:

---

the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. Particular specialized studies that make use of empirical methods are often referred to as sciences as well.

---

See, things other than pure and contemporary codified scientific methodology can fall under the spectre of scientific work. This is accepted, historically.


 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 

quote:

---

Here's a wikipedia list of science laws. Its wikipedia, so I wouldn't entirely trust it but its accurate enough and will give you an idea of what tends to make law and what doesn't.

---

quote:

---

A scientist is an expert in at least one area of science who uses the scientific method to do research. William Whewell coined the word in 1833 at the request of the poet Coleridge. Before that, it had been "natural philosopher" or "man of science". Scientists have an innate desire to understand the world (and Universe), often from childhood. At one time science was not in the public eye, though technology has continually modified human existence. Now the activity of scientists, especially those in medicine, is widely known.

Scientists include theoreticians who never do experiments and experimentalists who do not do theory.

---

quote:

---

See, things other than pure and contemporary codified scientific methodology can fall under the spectre of scientific work. This is accepted, historically.

---

quote:

---

Can you reference a source that you DO trust?

---

Not this late at night, not on short notice, and not when the library is closed
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

That's the point. Except you reversed it. Laws are proven. Theories have so much evidense that they may as well be proven. That's the point, they aren't all that incorrect to treat theories as laws. In fact the two are so close in science that they are often used interchangeably. IE the Law/Theory of Special Relativity.

---

quote:

---

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.

---

quote:

---

1) theory in science means something completely different than it does in common usage or in politics. Which is why the insitance upon emphasizing it is problematic.

---

quote:

---

2) faith and belief has no place in the empiricle sciences, which are based upon experimentation and observation.

---

quote:

---

quote:That's the point. Except you reversed it. Laws are proven. Theories have so much evidense that they may as well be proven. That's the point, they aren't all that incorrect to treat theories as laws. In fact the two are so close in science that they are often used interchangeably. IE the Law/Theory of Special Relativity.

Also have to mention that your definition of a scientific law versus a scientific theory isn't exactly correct.

John Rennie, of SciAm:

quote:Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.

You can check more on the philosophy of scientific laws at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/

---

quote:

---

The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth". But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations - to get at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess.

---

quote:

---

A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on the confirmation of hypotheses through repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. However, there are no strict guidelines as to how or when a scientific hypothesis becomes a scientific law.

---

quote:

---

Any and every scientific law is open to being challenged, and is sometimes completely replaced by laws that have a greater domain of validity. Hence the changing and evolving nature of scientific truths: scientific laws - as realized by the practitioners of science - grow and change to encompass increasing domains of phenomenon and with a greater degree of accuracy. An explanation with only a limited range of applicability is usually called a model. A postulate that receives some experimental verification is called a principle. Explanations of greater validity are termed as theories, and these tend to be more detailed than models and have greater predictive power. The term law is usually reserved for those theories that have been experimentally verified, such as the law of energy conservation and so on.

---

quote:

---

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

---

quote:

---

A scientific law is a rule or a set of rules which generalizes the behavior of some phenomenon in nature. For example, Newton's First Law of Motion states that every object either remains at rest or in continuous motion with constant speed unless acted upon by a force. A scientific law is subjected to rigorous testing by a variety of experiments which are repeated many times. A valid scientific law can accurately predict natural phenomena. For example, Newton's First Law of Motion predicts that a student wearing in-line skates coasting with constant speed atop a flat, horizontal, friction-free surface would continue forever if there were no outside forces acting on the skates. If we knew the student's speed, we could predict how far the student would travel in a given amount of time. For example, if moving with a constant speed of 2 m/s for 5 sec, how far would the student move? Here we appeal to Newton's First Law, which stated algebraically is the familiar expression, distance = speed x time or d = vt.

A theory , as opposed to a scientific law, is usually not as thoroughly tested by experiments. Either a law or a theory can sometimes explain the actual cause of the phenomenon. However, neither a law nor a theory needs to specify a cause of phenomena in nature to be considered successful. Rather to become acceptable to the community of scientists as scientific laws and theories, whether in the form of statements or algebraic expressions, the laws and theories must merely be capable of reliable predictions of natural phenomena. Scientific inquiry in the physical sciences generally proceeds not with hypothesis testing, but by developing and refining "models".

---

I could keep going, there are more in my current google search. Each with its own idea on what hypothesis, theory, and law are. Some lump theory and law together. Some keep them separate. Some say law can never become theory, some say a law is simply a theory with even more evidense and support. Some give a specific point at which theory becomes law, others say its undefined.

My claim that they are used interchangably isn't entirely correct. But its not entirely incorrect either. They are used interchangably. And no one can seem to agree upon whether or not doing so is correct.

What they do agree upon is that the scientific definition of a theory is different than the common usage. That a theory has experimental support and that it is not something to be brushed aside as "merely a theory".
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Yeah, that was annoying me, too.

This post was, of course, in reference to the egregious spelling error mentioned by Ryan.

And nope, I don't see anything wrong with the speeling in this post, so I think I'm safe in commenting.
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:2) faith and belief has no place in the empiricle sciences, which are based upon experimentation and observation.

And prayer doesn't count as experimentation because...?

---

quote:

---

Yeah, that was annoying me, too. [Razz]

---

Awww gimme a break. Its 4:30 in the frackin morning. I'm a frackin physist, not an english major. When I get tired my spelling and grammar go to hell in a handbasket
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 

 

---

Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
 

quote:

---

You want to do a scientific experiment on prayer, be my guest. First you have to come up with a hypothesis. So your hypothesis is... what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:

quote:

---

Yeah, that was annoying me, too. [Razz]

---

Awww gimme a break. Its 4:30 in the frackin morning. I'm a frackin physist, not an english major. When I get tired my spelling and grammar go to hell in a handbasket

---

I know, I know. I was just giving you a hard time. I mean hey, what else do I have to do at 2:30 in the morning?

What is this sleep people keep talking about?
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 

quote:

---

That prayer gives the same answer to multiple people. If the answer is something personal bias will affect and all different kinds of people still get the same answer, then there must be an answerer beyond our own subconscious, no?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

That prayer gives the same answer to multiple people.

---

And that would be why there's only one religion in the world, right?

---

quote:

---

That prayer gives the same answer to multiple people. If the answer is something personal bias will affect and all different kinds of people still get the same answer, then there must be an answerer beyond our own subconscious, no?

---

quote:

---

I don't have a design, I don't care

---

You asked why it doesn't include prayer I'm showing you why not. Coming up with an unbiased experiment to test prayer would be damned near impossible. People have done studies on prayer, but their studies took out the faith and religion and looked merely at the health benefits from a biological and psycological stand point. You can look up the studies if you want.

Running an unbaised experiment on prayer as a test of validity for a religion, as you seemed to be suggesting, would be... well *shrug* good luck.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Oh! Oh! My cue!

Google Toolbar (with spellcheck)

or

ieSpell

Both of those can still spell at 4:30 am.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
*laughs* rivka, you are such a boy to jehold!
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

Oh! Oh! My cue! [Big Grin]

Google Toolbar (with spellcheck)

or

ieSpell

Both of those can still spell at 4:30 am. [Wink]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
That prayer gives the same answer to multiple people. If the answer is something personal bias will affect and all different kinds of people still get the same answer, then there must be an answerer beyond our own subconscious, no?

---

quote:

---

Alcon said:
Theories have so much evidense that they may as well be proven.

---

quote:

---

1.A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2.The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3.A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4.Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5.A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

---

quote:

---

I don't think it's a silly argument when people reject scientific theories, attempt to replace them with pseudo-religious theories, and in the process, damage science by undermining fundamental scientific meanings in the mind of the public.

---

quote:

---

I thought you were saying "it is silly to argue that because some people reject certain scientific theories, they are rejecting science."

---

quote:

---

If that was what you meant though, then maybe I should be clearer: that argument is not silly because one of the methods of attack against those theories is undermining the scientific concept of the theory. ID proponents, whether or not they mean to, are capitalizing on a misconception that damages science. I consider this "rejecting science" in the same way that I'd call purposefully mischaracterizing the scientific method as "trial and error" rejecting science.

---

Well, then we're splitting hairs. Because that is not what I meant (or what Alcon posted) when it comes to "rejecting science."
 

---

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Right, the electricity thing, I see now.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
*clears throat* *hits a high note* I can see clearly now, the rain has come
 

---

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
But, dammit, it's no fun if we just agree and break out into song! Sounds too much like hippy camp.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Not with my singing. I sound more like a moose in heat.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Actually, there are different theories of electricity, they are just more esoteric in nature (and are often bundled in with other related theories). The reason anti-matter was discovered was that using matrix math (I believe), certain things were implied; one way to look at these things was that something about the environment that electrons "live" in was dimpled, with this energy wells. Depending on your math, you can visualize different reasons for how electrons follow, for instance, Maxwell's equations.

^--- That's my half-remembered recollection of what I read in this book.

The Big Bang has fairly large amount of evidence too, it's just that, given the nature of what is being studied, it is lots of arcane evidence. The microwave background radiation pretty much proved that a Big Bang happened, it's more a matter of how now (which is where multiple theories come in).

Sure, if you compare papers written, electricity may well have a huge lead, but that just means it's been around longer as a theory. I think it would be naive to say that the Big Bang has substantially less qualitative evidence, about the event itself.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 

quote:

---

I think it would be naive to say that the Big Bang has substantially less qualitative evidence, about the event itself.

---

quote:

---

The Big Bang has fairly large amount of evidence too, it's just that, given the nature of what is being studied, it is lots of arcane evidence.

---

quote:

---

Certainly, we know how to make electricity work for us; but that's not the scientific part, that's merely engineering.

---

Exactly!

quote:

---

Oh yes, Democritus. Atomic theory, bah. There are two possibilities : Either matter is infinitely divisible, or it isn't. Democritus had a 50% chance of getting it right.

---

quote:

---

m_p_h, While I appreciate the difference, do you agree it is moot when discussing the actual scientific merits?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cheiros do ender:

quote:

---

You want to do a scientific experiment on prayer, be my guest. First you have to come up with a hypothesis. So your hypothesis is... what?

---

That prayer gives the same answer to multiple people. If the answer is something personal bias will affect and all different kinds of people still get the same answer, then there must be an answerer beyond our own subconscious, no?

---

I'm sorry. No. I hope this does not offend the LDS members of the board, but I feel constrained to report my experience in this area.

I did not get the answer that I was "supposed" to get. When I did not, after years - yes, literally years; I'm stubborn - I was told that it was my fault. I was sinning, or I wasn't paying enough tithing, or I didn't have enough faith. Well, I know my own conscience and my own actions, and I was doing everything I was supposed to. If anything, I was being what the Catholics call too scrupulous. It took me probably twenty years to realize that, no, I was not at fault. I was getting an answer, all right, just not the one I was told I would get, the one I was expected to get, the one that I desperately wanted to get. I did not get the "right" answer, and after my experience no one can convince me that prayer is a legitimate scientific method.

Not saying that prayer is a bad thing; just saying that everyone does not get the same answer. Which kind of rules it out as a path to scientific truth.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Engineering is considered an "applied science". Engineers can be scientists and scientists can be engineers at any given minute regardless of what their degree might be.

AJ
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It can be awfully inconvenient. They'll be walking down the street, stop to look at something pretty, and then BAM! Science!
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
Who's this "They?"

I'm always suspicious of "They."

*looks around nervously*
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
m_p_h, I took your post as Juxtapose read me. I realize now you were arguing against Alcon's incredulity (which I agree with you about), but I feel that addressing only his incredulity is really just rhetorical nit-picking. Which normally I wouldn't post about, since I think I'm a fan of the picking of rhetorical-nits here at Hatrack.

My bad.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
"But if something reaches theory point it means we've seen a lot of examples and they all hold to the theory."
"Science doesn't prove anything, but if its theory its as good as proven. Its as close as science can come. Some theories have more evidense than others yes, but they all have a whole lot of evidense. "


Spontaneous Generation was considered a theory (some would even say a law) too. Multiple experiments were that proved it. There was a lot of evidence for it.

"The only reason we hear more about the big bang is that it contradicts peoples religious views and there is no practical offshoot of it that people can watch working every day."
Not necessarily true. It doesn't contradict my religious views. My skepticism is that to me personally, there is a difference between theories that we can test and use and theories that try to take what we can observe and try to extrapolate that back through time (vast amounts of time as far as evolution and big bang are concerned). So maybe it's just because I am an engineer, but I'm much more prone to accept theories that I can see, use, and test than I am ones that make up a story about something that happened eons ago on the basis of extremely limited current observations. That just seems more like the realm of religion to me anyway

I'm not trying to imply that evolution and the big bang will go the way of spontaneous generation. On the contrary, I think they are mostly right. My point is simply to echo what KoM said and suggest that we are sometimes just too self-confident or arrogent when it comes to our knowledge. Whether this comes as a backlash from religious conservatives or the conservative backlash comes from scientific arrogance is anybody's guess. Why can't we all just be friends?
 

---