~~ Do you believe in the theory of evolution? ~~

[FrozenUnicorn]

My opinion might differ from most of the people here, but I, don't believe in evolution. I'm a Muslim and my religion taught me that the human comes from Adam and Eve.

“The likeness of Jesus, to Allah, is the same as Adam. He created him from earth and then He said to him, ‘Be!’ and he was.†(A Verse from the Holy Quran)

 

You can refer here as well.

 

Regards,

Edited April 28, 2015 by FrozenUnicorn

[Emmi]

My opinion might differ from most of the people here, but I, don't believe in evolution. I'm a Muslim and my religion taught me that the human comes from Adam and Eve.“The likeness of Jesus, to Allah, is the same as Adam. He created him from earth and then He said to him, ‘Be!’ and he was.” (A Verse from the Holy Quran)

 

You can refer here as well.

 

Regards,

I appreciate your response.

Though I believe in evolution, I know some people who are scientists but also religious who believe in some sort of happy medium between the two. Their belief is that God created the universe with all of its physical properties, but afterwards let the universe take its own course, allowing for evolution, etc. In this way, they're acknowledging a belief in evolution while still maintaining some aspects of their religious beliefs, because they feel religion and science aren't necessarily exclusive (which they aren't).

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

[King112]

Well FrozenUnicorn, if that's your belief, thats totally fine.

No offense here, I'm just stating my opinion.

I feel that evolution has, and always will take place. An example of this is eye colour changing. There has been a rise in the number of people who have green, purple and other non conventional eyes. In addition, (no racism intended), this happened in September, 2014. That, in my opinion shows that evolution is taking place.

 

Another point to bring up though, really, how do we define evolution? 

Do we mean that physical features change? or are we referring to new skills being "in built" so as to say. Eg: children nowadays are much better with new tech than their parents?

I think we should try to define what we mean by evolution really.

 

@ Emmi, I think that religion and science are exclusive. Religion is social, and political, whereas science is science. Religion helps unify people, and explain some concepts that are not understood, but science is the foundation of everything. Now, I believe in God, but not religion. So maybe my thinking is unconventional.

[Emmi]

@ Emmi, I think that religion and science are exclusive. Religion is social, and political, whereas science is science. Religion helps unify people, and explain some concepts that are not understood, but science is the foundation of everything. Now, I believe in God, but not religion. So maybe my thinking is unconventional.

They aren't exclusive. For two specific examples, genetics first came about from Mendel, who was a monk, and the big bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest. Are there people who think they are? Yeah. But it doesn't have to be. I think you completely shut out a whole other way of looking at the world if you go "no! religion bad!" or "no! science bad!"

[King112]

 

They aren't exclusive. For two specific examples, genetics first came about from Mendel, who was a monk, and the big bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest. Are there people who think they are? Yeah. But it doesn't have to be. I think you completely shut out a whole other way of looking at the world if you go "no! religion bad!" or "no! science bad!"

 

fair enough.

You make a good case, but its my opinion that they are exclusive. I feel that theories may be proposed by priests or monks, but eventually they lead to God.

Now that, in my mind doesnt make sense, but it's probably me.

I'll try to find some examples to refute so we can have a discussion (I'm sleepy and don't feel like researching at the moment.) so hold your thought.

[FractiousArrogance]

I would simply like to chime in and state that a person can not "believe in" a fact. You can simply "believe the" fact. 

As for the question itself, I must say that I am a religious neutral person. I am willing to learn about the topic and even am interested in it even though I do not necessarily believe it. As for evolution, I might agree with one of the previous comments that evolution took place as the will of God. Remember, I am always open towards facts.

[Emilia1320]

@ Emmi, I think that religion and science are exclusive. Religion is social, and political, whereas science is science. Religion helps unify people, and explain some concepts that are not understood, but science is the foundation of everything. Now, I believe in God, but not religion. So maybe my thinking is unconventional.

They aren't exclusive. For two specific examples, genetics first came about from Mendel, who was a monk, and the big bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest. Are there people who think they are? Yeah. But it doesn't have to be. I think you completely shut out a whole other way of looking at the world if you go "no! religion bad!" or "no! science bad!"

I don't say I know anything because this was a new information for me, but are you sure that priest was actually religious? Because I could imagine there is a possibility he no longer believed in god but didnt dare to question anything due social pressure. Anyway this is theorycrafting, just a question that came to mind.

I don't think religion and science are fully exclusive but a person who believes in both cannot believe in both in letter, since their views on the origin of universe etc. differ so much it would anyway lead to discord.

Now if one believes in science and thinks religion is symbolic it's a lot more possible, but why would anyone want to believe in such a limiting thing? ... That sort of feels irrational to ms. Maybe I'm biased because my experiences about religion we are solely bad, and these news about religional violence don't actually help me to like religions more.

[Emmi]

@ Emmi, I think that religion and science are exclusive. Religion is social, and political, whereas science is science. Religion helps unify people, and explain some concepts that are not understood, but science is the foundation of everything. Now, I believe in God, but not religion. So maybe my thinking is unconventional.

They aren't exclusive. For two specific examples, genetics first came about from Mendel, who was a monk, and the big bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest. Are there people who think they are? Yeah. But it doesn't have to be. I think you completely shut out a whole other way of looking at the world if you go "no! religion bad!" or "no! science bad!"

I don't say I know anything because this was a new information for me, but are you sure that priest was actually religious? Because I could imagine there is a possibility he no longer believed in god but didnt dare to question anything due social pressure. Anyway this is theorycrafting, just a question that came to mind.

I don't think religion and science are fully exclusive but a person who believes in both cannot believe in both in letter, since their views on the origin of universe etc. differ so much it would anyway lead to discord.

Now if one believes in science and thinks religion is symbolic it's a lot more possible, but why would anyone want to believe in such a limiting thing? ... That sort of feels irrational to ms. Maybe I'm biased because my experiences about religion we are solely bad, and these news about religional violence don't actually help me to like religions more.

Actually the priest still was by everything I've seen.

Why do you feel that religion must always be limiting? Even though you had a bad experience, which is unfortunate, that doesn't mean everyone who is still religious or spiritual limits themselves to only what their holy book says. Very few people follow strict interpretations of their religion nowadays, the overwhelming majority accept both science and religion into their lives.

I also don't see how a scientific and religious view on the origins of the universe differ at all. The science view is that at the moment of creation, all matter and energy was condensed into an infinitesimal, hot speck which then suddenly burst into being and expanded and is still expanding today. The religious view is that at the moment of creation, God created the universe and everything in it. Even going further, when God created everything else over the next several "days," many religious people I know interpret a "day" into millions or billions of years, because after all we observe these things happening through science and we know it takes a long time for stars to form, planets to form, etc. I fail to see how one differs from another, other than the fact that one believes it just happened and the other believes a god made it.

[Emilia1320]

@ Emmi, I think that religion and science are exclusive. Religion is social, and political, whereas science is science. Religion helps unify people, and explain some concepts that are not understood, but science is the foundation of everything. Now, I believe in God, but not religion. So maybe my thinking is unconventional.

They aren't exclusive. For two specific examples, genetics first came about from Mendel, who was a monk, and the big bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest. Are there people who think they are? Yeah. But it doesn't have to be. I think you completely shut out a whole other way of looking at the world if you go "no! religion bad!" or "no! science bad!"

I don't say I know anything because this was a new information for me, but are you sure that priest was actually religious? Because I could imagine there is a possibility he no longer believed in god but didnt dare to question anything due social pressure. Anyway this is theorycrafting, just a question that came to mind.

I don't think religion and science are fully exclusive but a person who believes in both cannot believe in both in letter, since their views on the origin of universe etc. differ so much it would anyway lead to discord.

Now if one believes in science and thinks religion is symbolic it's a lot more possible, but why would anyone want to believe in such a limiting thing? ... That sort of feels irrational to ms. Maybe I'm biased because my experiences about religion we are solely bad, and these news about religional violence don't actually help me to like religions more.

Actually the priest still was by everything I've seen.

Why do you feel that religion must always be limiting? Even though you had a bad experience, which is unfortunate, that doesn't mean everyone who is still religious or spiritual limits themselves to only what their holy book says. Very few people follow strict interpretations of their religion nowadays, the overwhelming majority accept both science and religion into their lives.

I also don't see how a scientific and religious view on the origins of the universe differ at all. The science view is that at the moment of creation, all matter and energy was condensed into an infinitesimal, hot speck which then suddenly burst into being and expanded and is still expanding today. The religious view is that at the moment of creation, God created the universe and everything in it. Even going further, when God created everything else over the next several "days," many religious people I know interpret a "day" into millions or billions of years, because after all we observe these things happening through science and we know it takes a long time for stars to form, planets to form, etc. I fail to see how one differs from another, other than the fact that one believes it just happened and the other believes a god made it.

Okay, as I said I don't know or deny, it was just an scenario that came to mind.

Well, from my side people can believe whatever they want, but I strongly stand against religion for unnecessary bloodspoil and misguiding people it causes. By this I mean for example terrorism or circumcinsions. I hate when a child is just grown into religion without really tellling about the scientific theories and evidence behind them we have. I was such a child. If an educated adult decides to believe something absurd, then they do. But in the case of children they may be fully unable to know any alternatives to religion due suppressive attitude on family. My family isn't even the worst there is, and it was difficult enough. I don't want it to happen to others.

Now, if an adult believes in god or whatever, it's not my concern. I accept these people but they aren't ones I look up to. Now I know there have been religious scientists and stuff, and I respect their accomplishments too and it's not black and white but generally my 'role models' are atheists.

And yes there has been religious scientists, but there has been religions suppressing science as well. Just think about poor Galilei.

[Emmi]

But what about the other side? You claim that people who believe in religion are absurd and you wouldn't look up to them. Isn't that kind of the same thing (albeit way mildler)? What if an atheist scientist was a total pompous jerk with no regard for anyone other than themselves? Would you still look up to that person more than a person who genuinely liked helping people, was pretty much liked by everyone, but was religious? Not even that. What if we had two scientists whose accomplishments were nearly identical and they both worked on groundbreaking, innovative topics, but one was atheist and one was religious. Their work has no relation to their religious beliefs. Why does one seem better to you than the other?

Am I silly and absurd for studying chemical engineering and mathematics, wanting to promote science literacy and education, wanting to do something that at least impacts someone one day, but believe in a god?

Without wanting to go in that direction, circumcision is more often than not a cultural phenomenon rather than a religious one, and terrorism isn't always religiously based.

[Soraya777]

I think that the evidence provided to the world at the moment is insufficient to prove the theory. That's why it still remains a theory

[Award Winning Boss]

I think that the evidence provided to the world at the moment is insufficient to prove the theory. That's why it still remains a theory

 

Gravity is also a theory. 

 

Scientific theories aren't guesses but reliable descriptions of the world. You can have a theory and a fact. 

 

The evidence is abundant and clear. It's proven true and all the challenges against it have failed to satisfy regular scientific standards. 

[Soraya777]

 

Although it seems a significant group do not believe in the theory of evolution, which is totally acceptable as it is only a theory,

 

Though I'm glad that you are not one of those fundamentalists who are evolution-deniers, but I deeply disagree with this statement that you've made above. It is totally UNACCEPTABLE to deny the theory of evolution!!! I've heard this "just-a-theory" argument a lot from so many people, but it is a fallacy and is probably a misinterpretation of what the term "theory" really means when scientists refer to the theory of evolution. Read more here: http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. It is a FACT.

 

What I find interesting is that the people who think that evolution is true express a form of hostility towards those who do not. The reality is that everyone's opinion is shaped by the evidence that they had witnessed during their lifetime. The reason why people have discussions about evolution vs creationism is so that both sides can introduce each other to their own perspective in order to see if they can change the other's opinion. Calling the person who thinks that creationism is real a "fundamentalist, evolution-denier" will never prove the theory of evolution and only make the evolution-believer seem like a fundamentalist. The reality is that wars have developed in history over such trivial matters as people's opinions that could be so easily altered by simple discussion. 

[Soraya777]

 

 

Although it seems a significant group do not believe in the theory of evolution, which is totally acceptable as it is only a theory,

 

Though I'm glad that you are not one of those fundamentalists who are evolution-deniers, but I deeply disagree with this statement that you've made above. It is totally UNACCEPTABLE to deny the theory of evolution!!! I've heard this "just-a-theory" argument a lot from so many people, but it is a fallacy and is probably a misinterpretation of what the term "theory" really means when scientists refer to the theory of evolution. Read more here: http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. It is a FACT.

 

What I find interesting is that the people who think that evolution is true express a form of hostility towards those who do not. The reality is that everyone's opinion is shaped by the evidence that they had witnessed during their lifetime. The reason why people have discussions about evolution vs creationism is so that both sides can introduce each other to their own perspective in order to see if they can change the other's opinion. Calling the person who thinks that creationism is real a "fundamentalist, evolution-denier" will never prove the theory of evolution and only make the evolution-believer seem like a fundamentalist. The reality is that wars have developed in history over such trivial matters as people's opinions that could be so easily altered by simple discussion. 

 

There is even more evidence on creation than there is on evolution. The following link many alter your perspective;

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

[Soraya777]

The biggest question of most "Creationists" or religious scientists is "How do things know what to do?" For example, undifferentiated cells of the premature blastula in a mother's ovaries know how to specialize. They know exactly how many cells need to be epithelial, muscle, nerve,etc. This is something referred to as the "miracle of life". If those undifferentiated cells are taken and implanted in, for instance, the heart tissue of another patient, they will differentiate into heart tissue. However, when they are in the ovaries of the biological mother, they do not differentiate into ovary tissue but into a human being. They have such a complex plan for designing the organs and tissues of the body, meanwhile without a brain to guide their action. This is just one example. Science is only a description natural processes to the extent of human knowledge. It is not the explanation for life and death. Besides, God is not like people. Ever tried visualizing the size of a human being to that of the universe? Follow this link,its cool;

 http://htwins.net/scale2/

The point is that if God designed and created this entire universe, then He and His intelligence must be even greater than the universe. Human beings are still stuck on discovering how they themselves operate as a species! How can we ever expect to fully understand God when we don't even understand ourselves yet? This is in response to people who quickly dismiss God as a fictional character just because they can't "understand" and "observe" Him visually. To me, it still does not make sense that everything in the entire universe works on its own. How do electrons know that they should be attracted to protons and who determined that as the first building block to construction of the entire universe?

[Vioh]

In this way, they're acknowledging a belief in evolution while still maintaining some aspects of their religious beliefs, because they feel religion and science aren't necessarily exclusive (which they aren't). What are everyone's thoughts on this?

 

Whether they're exclusive or not depends on what aspects we're talking about. While in some aspects (such as the moral aspects), religion & science are not necessarily exclusive, but in many other aspects (things like life after death, etc.), religion contradicts with all of the scientific evidence. But if there is such a contradiction, then why do many scientists also seem to be religious?

 

You suggest that that’s because religion & science aren’t exclusive. But I’d disagree, and here are 4 explanations that I’ve come up with to explain why some scientists are also religious:

 

God-of-the-gaps fallacy: (this following argument is paraphrased from a talk by Neil Degrasse Tyson at the Beyond Belief Conference):

• It’s true that there have been many brilliant scientists (e.g. Newton, Huygen, Ptolemy, etc) who invoked God in their work. But there’s one thing in common: They only invoked God when they were at the limit of their understanding. For example, Newton used his law to solve the so-called “two-body” problem, thus unraveled the mystery of gravity. However, due to complexity, his maths was unable to deal with the “many-body” problem, & thus he couldn’t explain all the celestial motions within the Solar System. At this limit of his understanding, he stopped all his thinking & claimed that the Solar System can’t merely be explained by mechanics and God must also be involved. (Source: Newton’s book Principia). This is simply the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.
• God-of-the-gaps is a dangerous thing as it slows down scientific progress. God a lazy explanation for everything, & it reduces our curiosity for the world. In the case of Newton, he had to wait for almost 300 years later until Laplace came along and explained the Solar System without invoking God. But this stagnation is almost 300 years‼!
• Similar thing happened to the Islamic world. During the Islam Golden Age (800 – 1100 C.E.), many scientific discoveries were made by the Islamic world, in which many were in the field of astronomy. But notice that this period only lasted for 300 years, and it stopped ever since‼! Why??? It turned out that in the 12th century, Imam Hamid al-Ghazali came along & spread his Islamic belief that God is the reason for everything. And this has turned the Muslims away from science, and the scientific progress in the Islamic world collapsed ever since.
• In general, one of the reasons why many scientists in the past were also religious is because of God-of-the-gaps fallacy. This fallacy sometimes led to stagnation (as in Newton’s case), and sometimes led to the total collapse of scientific progress (as in the case of the Islamic world).

Discussion about God is uninteresting to some scientists?

• Science is a broad subject which consists of so many different fields: evolutionary biology, engineering, cosmology, etc. But not all of these fields study about the fundamental science; and it’s only in the fundamental science that we see the clash between religion & science. Many engineers are religious, while almost all evolutionary biologists would reject God. In other words, it depends on what scientific discipline we are talking about. In fact, statistics has shown that “chemists are more likely to believe in God” than biologists or physicists. Some scientists, who don’t work with fundamental science, just think that it’s pointless to have a debate about science vs. religion. And when they think that the debate is boring, they wouldn’t be bothered to think deeply about these types of questions, and thus are unable to make a fair judgment of which side they really want to support.

Social factors:

• It’s tempting to think that Darwin would be highly critical of religion. After all, he was the one who started the whole discussion about evolution. But in fact, Darwin never criticized religions in public. The reason for that was most likely because he was afraid of a direct confrontation against the entire religious community as well as a direct confrontation against his wife who was religious. This can also be extrapolated forward to today’s society. Many American scientists are not interested in having a direct confrontation with the majority of America who are religious. Because of this, these scientists find it unnecessary to have to pick a side and criticize religion

Religion & science are reconcilable?

• Some scientists mistakenly think that religion & science are reconcilable because they assume that religion & science are totally different things (i.e. religion is about values, while science is about nature. End of story). But things are not that simple because religion isn’t just about values, it’s so much more than that as I’ve explained here in this thread (Post #343, #347, #356). Religion invents mystical stories, tales & lies about the nature to support its claim about our moral values (e.g. don’t do bad things, because you’ll go to hell, or something like that). Religion is a really a set of wrong beliefs that is used to justify its moral philosophy. And it is in this set of wrong beliefs where we will find religion clashing with science. For example, science tells you that there’s no afterlife, that the supernatural can’t influence the world around us, etc.
• So some scientists think of religion as if it’s only about moral values (which is a wrong assumption); and this thinking has lead them to believe that religion & science can coexist.

[Vioh]

What I find interesting is that the people who think that evolution is true express a form of hostility towards those who do not. The reality is that everyone's opinion is shaped by the evidence that they had witnessed during their lifetime. The reason why people have discussions about evolution vs creationism is so that both sides can introduce each other to their own perspective in order to see if they can change the other's opinion. Calling the person who thinks that creationism is real a "fundamentalist, evolution-denier" will never prove the theory of evolution and only make the evolution-believer seem like a fundamentalist. The reality is that wars have developed in history over such trivial matters as people's opinions that could be so easily altered by simple discussion. 

 

 

Look, the definitions of the words “fundamentalist” & “evolution-denier” are:

• Fundamentalist is the belief in old & traditional forms of religion, or the belief that what is written in a holy book, such as the Christian Bible, is completely true (Source: Cambridge dictionary)
• Evolution-deniers are those who deny evolution (Source: Common sense)

And creationists are those who believe in the holy books (bible, quran, etc.) & they also deny evolution‼! So according to definitions, aren’t creationists fundamentalist & evolution-deniers?

 

How do electrons know that they should be attracted to protons and who determined that as the first building block to construction of the entire universe?

 

These particles don’t know! They don’t have consciousness! The electrons interact with the protons by electric fields (as in classical mechanics), & through the exchange of virtual particles (as in quantum mechanics). The full explanation is a bit more complicated than that and requires quantum electrodynamics (which is the most accurate theory ever discovered by mankind) to understand. You should read more about science!

[Emilia1320]

But what about the other side? You claim that people who believe in religion are absurd and you wouldn't look up to them. Isn't that kind of the same thing (albeit way mildler)? What if an atheist scientist was a total pompous jerk with no regard for anyone other than themselves? Would you still look up to that person more than a person who genuinely liked helping people, was pretty much liked by everyone, but was religious? Not even that. What if we had two scientists whose accomplishments were nearly identical and they both worked on groundbreaking, innovative topics, but one was atheist and one was religious. Their work has no relation to their religious beliefs. Why does one seem better to you than the other?

Am I silly and absurd for studying chemical engineering and mathematics, wanting to promote science literacy and education, wanting to do something that at least impacts someone one day, but believe in a god?

Without wanting to go in that direction, circumcision is more often than not a cultural phenomenon rather than a religious one, and terrorism isn't always religiously based.

Sorry if you found my text insultive, I didn't mean to put it that way.

I just meant that, well, people appreciate each other, and look up to them. Many look up to pop stars, and that's totally fine. And that I don't look up to religious people doesn't mean I didn't accept them, all don't like Rihanna's music but most don't hate her either. And as I said, it's not black and white. If person is other way good and has other accoplishments I still respect those accomplishments, of course.

And I never said you would be silly and absurd, as I said I accept religious people. By word "absurd" regarding beliefs I just meant to believe in something I find absurd. Peace.

[Emmi]

It's statements such as

 You should read more about science!

Religion invents mystical stories, tales & lies about the nature to support its claim about our moral values (e.g. don’t do bad things, because you’ll go to hell, or something like that). Religion is a really a set of wrong beliefs that is used to justify its moral philosophy.

that are unnecessarily hostile towards the other side and will never help advance your arguments regardless of what other information you present. In fact they make the other side more likely to refuse to listen to you because now you're insulting their intelligence. You believe in silly fairy tales! Go read science that likely takes beyond your level of formal education to understand because it's better than your silly fairy tales!

With that being said, I think what soraya was trying to get at was not that fundamental particles know or are aware of anything (which they can't do as particles), but rather, why do these fundamental particles interact in such a way that we currently explain with quantum mechanics? How do these particles come into existence through random quantum fluctuations and just interact as they do? How did physical laws and interpretations of the universe, which are so great and seemingly "just right" for existence, just come about (before we knew about them, because certainly things like gravity and quantum fields have existed since the dawn of time before we even discovered them)? Why does this demand a purely scientific answer? "Because that's how the world works and science is always right"?

[Vioh]

That are unnecessarily hostile towards the other side and will never help advance your arguments regardless of what other information you present. In fact they make the other side more likely to refuse to listen to you because now you're insulting their intelligence. You believe in silly fairy tales! Go read science that likely takes beyond your level of formal education to understand because it's better than your silly fairy tales!

 

I don't think those statements can be seen as insults to the intelligence of the other side. I just wanted to point out that the things that soraya brought up were strictly scientific questions that science already has the answer for. The behaviours of the electrons & protons are completely understood by science; soraya's statements like "To me, it still does not make sense that everything in the entire universe works on its own." are clearly arguments from incredulity, which is rooted from the ignorance of science. Are you saying that I'm being hostile to the other side when I'm simply saying that the other side is ignorant of some certain facts? Notice that I never claimed that the other side is stupid or something like that.

 

With that being said, I think what soraya was trying to get at was not that fundamental particles know or are aware of anything (which they can't do as particles), but rather, why do these fundamental particles interact in such a way that we currently explain with quantum mechanics? How do these particles come into existence through random quantum fluctuations and just interact as they do? How did physical laws and interpretations of the universe, which are so great and seemingly "just right" for existence, just come about (before we knew about them, because certainly things like gravity and quantum fields have existed since the dawn of time before we even discovered them)? Why does this demand a purely scientific answer? "Because that's how the world works and science is always right"?

 

If that was actually what soraya was trying to say, then perhaps the question can be rephrased as: why physical laws are what they are? why quantum mechanics?, etc. Well, these are interesting philosophical questions that aren't yet answered by science. But that doesn't mean that we can invoke God into the discussions, because it's a lazy way of explaining things. "Oh, God makes it happen. End of story!". It doesn't add anything to our understanding. And if history has taught us anything, it's that we should not fall into the God-of-the-gaps fallacy, especially because it can lead to stagnation in the progress of humans knowledge.

 

Also, I think that the question "is science is always right?" is not really a good question, because that question seems to treat science as some form of belief system. But in fact, it's not. It's a process of gaining knowledge based on empirical evidence (which we can trust, because empirical evidence is the data from reality). Scientific explanations may not be right at a certain moment in time, but because it has self-correcting mechanism, science will automatically corrects itself to give us better knowledge based upon new evidence.