Quote:
Originally posted by BreakABone
I also find it hard to buy into either since they aren't proven, but all exist in theory.
|
Well, I would say this is because you misunderstand the nature of the word "theory" in the scientific sense. Time and time again I hear people saying "it's only a theory", using it in the same context as "the Loch Ness monster is only a theory".
There is a difference between a genuine scientific theory and what most people understand as theories... a scientific theory is a "rule" based on obervations... it IS substantited and "proven" to a reasonable level of certainty.
The reaon they are called theory rather than fact or law is that science is continually changing and adapting as more and more is discovered or re-examined... hence to call something a rule or law when you know very well that it might have to be changed next week is a bit daft.
"they basically try to disprove each other"
I wouldn't say so; science does not set out to try and disprove religion, although manysee it like that. There are many aspects of science that have little or nothing to do with belief and vice versa; many scientists are in fact religious to some extent. There is room for both of them in someone's life.
Even the pope managed to admit that evolution occurred...
"For the most part neither can be proven."
Well, science can be proved to be true beyond reasonable doubt for the vast majority of cases... that's how our theories come about.
"For the most part either can be disproven also"
What aspect of science do you know of that can be disproved?
""If" this happens and then they find something to disprove it or change it.."
Such is the nature of scientific adaption... if something happens that your theory can't account for, then the only option you have is to think up a better one which fits in with the available evidence.
"it's all so confusing..."
I guess it can be!