A couple of weeks ago the scientific world was shaken by a report out of the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) claiming that, after years of study, neutrinos were found to be traveling faster than the speed of light. The results were so shocking because, if accurate, they contradict Einstein's theory of special relativity which asserts that nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light.
The importance of this news can easily be gauged by the excitement that the results generated in the non-technical media. News reports abounded with headlines like "Scientists Report Breaking the Speed of Light, But Can it Be True? " from NPR and "'Faster than Light' Particles Make Time Travel Possible, Scientist Says" from Fox News.
Scientists from around the globe made it clear that if these results hold up to additional scrutiny, they might herald a revolution in physics; that some of our most cherished and important concepts, concepts at the very core of physics, might have to be reworked.
Independent of whether or not the CERN results are correct, they have an enormous amount to teach us about the very nature of science and how dramatically it differs from the ways in which creationists characterize science. It also highlights the differences in methodology between those practicing science and those promoting the pseudoscience of creationism.
Creationists regularly assert that science is a closed operation, that those offering opinions differing from the norm cannot get a fair hearing within the scientific community. They argue that it is impossible to publish papers in the technical literature that call the dominant paradigm into question. It is this narrow-mindedness, they continue, that keeps their "important" ideas from being shared broadly. I can't begin to count the number of notes I've received from creationists who rail against the biologists who refuse to consider what they have to say. The charge is always the same: scientists are biased and unwilling to consider any ideas that contradict their opinions.
The work arising from CERN demonstrates just how absurd this argument is. The scientists responsible for the work calling special relativity into question had absolutely no trouble getting their results in front of their peers. No one closed ranks and black-listed those who challenged the prevailing paradigm. Quite the opposite occurred. The physics community is abuzz with the results, and healthy discussion, meaningful skepticism, and plans for replication abound.
Speaking as a scientist, I can say categorically that the second most exciting time to be active in the field is when earth-shaking results appear in your discipline. The only time that is more exciting is when you personally produce such results. (To be fair, I need to say that, like more than 99 percent of all scientists, I actually have not published a paper that has fully transformed my discipline - but I can certainly dream of how it might feel to do so!)
How does one go about attempting to overthrow a scientific paradigm? Very, very carefully and as transparently as possible. Consider what Antonio Ereditato, the spokesperson for the CERN group, said about their work, "We have high confidence in our results. We have checked and rechecked for anything that could have distorted our measurements but we found nothing. We now want colleagues to check them independently." These scientists worked for three years, found a result that might shake physics to its very core, presented their full methodology and have now asked their fellow scientists to check and replicate their work. They understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Creationists, on the other hand, simply make assertions. They offer no data and perform no experiments. As was pointed out by creationists themselves under oath in the Dover, PA intelligent design trial in 2005, no one is performing any scientific investigations of intelligent design. No one is publishing any empirical data on the subject. No one is doing anything at all other than saying, "wow, it seems really unlikely and counter-intuitive for evolution to work." What the creationists want is for an alternative theory of evolution to be accepted - and taught to our children - simply because they don't like the one that currently is supported by the data and by virtually every scientist in the field.
It turns out that a great deal of science is, in fact, counter-intuitive. If that weren't the case, we'd likely not need scientists to help us understand the workings of the natural world. Irrespective of the complexity of the world around us, creationists know what they believe and they need neither data nor experiments to support their beliefs. Belief is enough for them.
For scientists, however, data are absolutely essential. The physicists at CERN demonstrated how science works, how important ideas enter the scientific community and are dealt with on their merits, regardless of their potential impact.
The difference between scientists and creationists is so stark that it can be summarized simply enough to be placed on two bumper stickers.
Don't believe everything you can think!
Don't think about anything you believe!
I bet even creationists can figure out which one is theirs.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Michael Graziano: The Spirit Ends When The Brain Dies
Jake Bloch: Awe: Understanding Our Interconnectedness
Gadadhara Pandit Dasa: Hinduism: Where Science and Spirituality Intersect
Victor Udoewa: Doubt: A Scientific And Religious Perspective
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
Albert Einstein: Religion and Science
I think this idea was put forth (at least my first encounter with it) was from Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos."
The fabric of space could expand faster than the speed of light and an object can hitch a ride, almost surf the wave of the fabric of space.
So, a neutrino traveling faster than light could and should be possible, if it were catching a ride on the fabric of space.
So, I will clue you in on this...and, that's just because of my nephew status - what the CERN scientists have actually done is re-measured the speed of light.
Don't go tell anybody that I told you about it first.
Maybe, this chart will help you. It shows the degree of error based on the instrument or method used. And, it is in those errors that may account for what CERN has discovered. In other words, another measurement for the speed of light which man was incapable of measuring prior to their experiments.
Currently, we use an adopted speed of light with a general acceptance of its value.
1676 Olaus Roemer Jupiter's satellites 214,000
1726 James Bradley Stellar Aberration 301,000
1849 Armand Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,000
1862 Leon Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +-500
1879 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 +-50
1907 Rosa, Dorsay Electromagnetic constants 299,788 +-30
1926 Albert Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,796 +-4
1947 Essen, Gorden-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 +-3
1958 K. D. Froome Radio Interferometer 299,792.5 +-0.1
1973 Evanson et al Lasers 299,792.4574 +-0.001
1983 Adopted Value 299,792.458
But if you're convinced, write to them! If you're right you could well be up for a Nobel Prize. If you're wrong, you'll have learned something interesting.
The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific facts. For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses disagree with “Christian” Fundamentalists and many creationists. The following shows what the Bible really teaches.]]
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200609a/article_01.htm
[[Free of unscientific views. Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat to the notion that tangible substances or objects held it aloft. Long before science learned about the spread and prevention of disease, physicians employed some practices that were ineffective at best, lethal at worst. But not once in its more than 1,100 chapters does the Bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices.
Partly as a result of turning powerful telescopes toward the heavens, scientists have concluded that the universe had a sudden “birth.” Not all scientists like the implications of this explanation. One professor noted: “A universe that began seems to demand a first cause; for who could imagine such an effect without a sufficient cause?” Yet, long before telescopes, the very first verse of the Bible plainly stated: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.
Even though it is an ancient book and touches on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies. Does not such a book merit, at the very least, our consideration?]]
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200711/article_03.htm
That would be because it DOES contradict it Jacob.
Alice watches Charlie playing with children in a playground, having reverted to his former self... ? Alas...
they could have saved all that money and asked me about light traveling faster than einstein said it could. consciousness is instant and all is consciousness.
A "god of the gaps" is problematic theologically because when science does find an answer for the gap, that diminishes their god.
My God (note the upper case) helps me live my life, but does not fill in any gaps. Nor is my God a puppet on a string waiting for a prayer to wipe out cancer, or some other malady. Prayers to my God ask for help to live through a malady, but do not ask for God to fix the malady.
Your lack of understanding, of even the simplest of the concepts illustrated here, is rather astounding.
And, it doesn't come as a shock to Christians that there is something faster than the speed of light. We've known that for years. Let the scientists reproduce their findings, and then let other scientists confirm the fact with duplication.
You get all excited and throw reason out the window. It amazes me that you can find the CERN findings, but you can't seem to find all of the reports, all over the internet, which talk about those findings possibly being false or inaccurate.
What a load of horseradish. More armchair quarterbacking from the religionists. Maybe if you guys have so much knowledge that nobody else has figured out yet you might want to go ahead and you know, tell us BEFORE some secularist scientist make the announcement. Makes it a bit easier to believe what will othewise be seen as self-righteousness, hubris and retro-prophecy.
Sorry, but that's the purview of religionists, not scientists.
Oh, and I would reread your comments before posting, your first paragraph is contradicted by your second one.
As for science, the age of reason began based on the postulate that God is ultimate rationality.
Be consistent with your trust in science. If creationism has to be rejected by virtue of lacking evidence then every other religious or spiritual belief has to be rejected as well.
Don't call creationists a bunch of crazy superstitious people and then go to church on Sunday.
There are many postulates in both religion and science that lack credible evidence. Religion sits back and says, "What??? Me worry???" Science goes looking for credible evidence.
Creationism is built on an attempt to reinforce a 20th-century doctrine about the Bible -- "Inerrancy" -- where the assertion is made that the Bible as the Word of God is not in error about anything, whether historical, scientific, etc. Creationism essentially asserts that faith in Christ is not enough for salvation, one has to believe in a literal interpretation of all things in Scripture as well.
Creationists regularly lie about what scientists actually say, their assertions are falsehoods packaged as religion. I nearly lost my faith as a result of them. While I did not lose my faith, I did learn a lot about how religious zealotry can lead you to do immoral acts.
Today's physicists are trying to understand how the primordial mass operated. To do that, they are speculating. Or using other verbs, they are hypothesizing. Or they are postulating. Or they are dreaming.
Speculation is a key component of the process we call science. Speculation is usually what leads to new discoveries, and/or new understandings. However, scientists generally use one of the other words to describe the process.
"Today's physicists are trying to understand " Key phrase, "trying to explain"
"Speculation is usually what leads to new discoveries, (key word is ““speculation" That words mean " to form an opinion (key word is opinion) with little or no evidence.
They are hypothesizing. Key word is "hypothesizing" and that word means, "an idea that is the starting point for making a case or conducting an experiment.
Pure science is simply about reproducing data and that other can reproduce that data. For example, baking a cake with a specific recipe is scientific. or making a meal by following certain directions is scientific. Saying that man came from apes IS NOT scientific or that there is no God is not scientific. Now just because one interjects his opinion that there is no God because he claims that is not scientific is imposing his belief upon the issue and that is not scientific. Physics tells you how things work, but, at this point in time, cannot tell you how they came about. For example, what is gravity? What is love? Now here is the kicker for non believers, it is not obsession or speculation that drives science...it is faith! As Robert Ripley would say, “Believe it…or not!”
It can be speculative, or apply 'inference to the best explanation'
This is hardly akin to the wild, baseless speculation of theologians.
Pure science is simply about reproducing data and that other can reproduce that data. For example, baking a cake with a specific recipe is scientific. or making a meal by following certain directions is scientific. Saying that man came from apes IS NOT scientific or that there is no God is not scientific. Now just because one interjects his opinion that there is no God because he claims that is not scientific is imposing his belief upon the issue and that is not scientific. Physics tells you how things work, but, at this point in time, cannot tell you how they came about. Now here is the kicker for non believers, it is not obsession or speculation that drives science...it is faith! As Robert Ripley would say, “Believe it…or not!”