A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.
2 Slight rewording
source | link

In such a discussion one has to know the difference between saying "this is how reality is" and "this is how reality works". Science does the latter, not the first.

When someone comes up with a hypothesis, what they are doing is to say "I think that reality works in this particular way". What this means is that they can make predictions, because if reality works this way, then if they poke it in a specific manner, then they should get that result.

They then go out into reality (or — as is much more often the case — into a lab where the annoyingly interruptive parts of reality can be shielded away) and poke at reality to see if reality will behave as they predicted.

If reality does not act as predicted the hypothesis is scrapped, or reworked. But if reality plays nice with them, and they get the expected result over and over again, then the hypothesis is validated and becomes a theory (and the researcher gets a Nobel Prize if their hunch is important enough).

What is important to note in this is that the question "why?" is not asked here. The important part is: "Does reality behave as expected, yes or no?". When reality does that, the science works. Why it behaves as expected is less important to know than the fact that is does behave as expected.

Take gravity for instance... we have no clue at all what gravity actually is, or why gravity is. We do know however how gravity works. The characteristics of gravity and its effect on us has been studied and is well understood. Now even if gravity is some kind of physical phenomenon or if it is really The Flying Spaghetti Monster that is tugging at everything does not really matter, as long as things behave in a predictable and consistent manner.

Evolution is like that as well. We have tested it, and it works. So even if "God" has decided to play a big prank on us by leaving all the clues that points to evolution, but in fact they did it themselves, then it does not matter all that much because Evolution still works. We tested it and it behaves as expected. So no, Evolution does not need to be re-written all that much.

That said...

...the whole grandiose display opens up a wholehuge can factory of worms; that we suddenly have a previously unseen player on the cosmic arena, with obvious phenomenal powers. And for the first time we have evidence of their existence. This means that God moves from being an article of faith to a studyable physical phenomenon... they are not longer a subject of belief but can be studied by science. In short that is not a victory for faith but instead something quite fun for science to sink their teeth into.

This — as a side note — is why the Holy Zee was not at all keen on the movie Avatar, because in that movie, the "deity" — or whatever you wish to call it — was a very tangible and studyable phenomena, meaning that even the science character went "Oh, well that's interesting!". Religion has never been very happy with someone wanting to test its validity, which is — of course — as I stated above at the very heart of science.

In such a discussion one has to know the difference between saying "this is how reality is" and "this is how reality works". Science does the latter, not the first.

When someone comes up with a hypothesis, what they are doing is to say "I think that reality works in this particular way". What this means is that they can make predictions, because if reality works this way, then if they poke it in a specific manner, then they should get that result.

They then go out into reality (or — as is much more often the case — into a lab where the annoyingly interruptive parts of reality can be shielded away) and poke at reality to see if reality will behave as they predicted.

If reality does not act as predicted the hypothesis is scrapped, or reworked. But if reality plays nice with them, and they get the expected result over and over again, then the hypothesis is validated and becomes a theory (and the researcher gets a Nobel Prize if their hunch is important enough).

What is important to note in this is that the question "why?" is not asked here. The important part is: "Does reality behave as expected, yes or no?". When reality does that, the science works. Why it behaves as expected is less important to know than the fact that is does behave as expected.

Take gravity for instance... we have no clue at all what gravity actually is, or why gravity is. We do know however how gravity works. The characteristics of gravity and its effect on us has been studied and is well understood. Now even if gravity is some kind of physical phenomenon or if it is really The Flying Spaghetti Monster that is tugging at everything does not really matter, as long as things behave in a predictable and consistent manner.

Evolution is like that as well. We have tested it, and it works. So even if "God" has decided to play a big prank on us by leaving all the clues that points to evolution, but in fact they did it themselves, then it does not matter all that much because Evolution still works. We tested it and it behaves as expected. So no, Evolution does not need to be re-written all that much.

That said...

...the whole grandiose display opens up a whole can factory of worms; that we suddenly have a previously unseen player on the cosmic arena, with obvious phenomenal powers. And for the first time we have evidence of their existence. This means that God moves from being an article of faith to a studyable physical phenomenon... they are not longer a subject of belief but can be studied by science. In short that is not a victory for faith but instead something quite fun for science to sink their teeth into.

This — as a side note — is why the Holy Zee was not at all keen on the movie Avatar, because in that movie, the "deity" — or whatever you wish to call it — was a very tangible and studyable phenomena, meaning that even the science character went "Oh, well that's interesting!". Religion has never been very happy with someone wanting to test its validity, which is — of course — as I stated above at the very heart of science.

In such a discussion one has to know the difference between saying "this is how reality is" and "this is how reality works". Science does the latter, not the first.

When someone comes up with a hypothesis, what they are doing is to say "I think that reality works in this particular way". What this means is that they can make predictions, because if reality works this way, then if they poke it in a specific manner, then they should get that result.

They then go out into reality (or — as is much more often the case — into a lab where the annoyingly interruptive parts of reality can be shielded away) and poke at reality to see if reality will behave as they predicted.

If reality does not act as predicted the hypothesis is scrapped, or reworked. But if reality plays nice with them, and they get the expected result over and over again, then the hypothesis is validated and becomes a theory (and the researcher gets a Nobel Prize if their hunch is important enough).

What is important to note in this is that the question "why?" is not asked here. The important part is: "Does reality behave as expected, yes or no?". When reality does that, the science works. Why it behaves as expected is less important to know than the fact that is does behave as expected.

Take gravity for instance... we have no clue at all what gravity actually is, or why gravity is. We do know however how gravity works. The characteristics of gravity and its effect on us has been studied and is well understood. Now even if gravity is some kind of physical phenomenon or if it is really The Flying Spaghetti Monster that is tugging at everything does not really matter, as long as things behave in a predictable and consistent manner.

Evolution is like that as well. We have tested it, and it works. So even if "God" has decided to play a big prank on us by leaving all the clues that points to evolution, but in fact they did it themselves, then it does not matter all that much because Evolution still works. We tested it and it behaves as expected. So no, Evolution does not need to be re-written all that much.

That said...

...the whole grandiose display opens up a huge can of worms; that we suddenly have a previously unseen player on the cosmic arena, with obvious phenomenal powers. And for the first time we have evidence of their existence. This means that God moves from being an article of faith to a studyable physical phenomenon... they are not longer a subject of belief but can be studied by science. In short that is not a victory for faith but instead something quite fun for science to sink their teeth into.

This — as a side note — is why the Holy Zee was not at all keen on the movie Avatar, because in that movie, the "deity" — or whatever you wish to call it — was a very tangible and studyable phenomena, meaning that even the science character went "Oh, well that's interesting!". Religion has never been very happy with someone wanting to test its validity, which is — of course — as I stated above at the very heart of science.

1
source | link

In such a discussion one has to know the difference between saying "this is how reality is" and "this is how reality works". Science does the latter, not the first.

When someone comes up with a hypothesis, what they are doing is to say "I think that reality works in this particular way". What this means is that they can make predictions, because if reality works this way, then if they poke it in a specific manner, then they should get that result.

They then go out into reality (or — as is much more often the case — into a lab where the annoyingly interruptive parts of reality can be shielded away) and poke at reality to see if reality will behave as they predicted.

If reality does not act as predicted the hypothesis is scrapped, or reworked. But if reality plays nice with them, and they get the expected result over and over again, then the hypothesis is validated and becomes a theory (and the researcher gets a Nobel Prize if their hunch is important enough).

What is important to note in this is that the question "why?" is not asked here. The important part is: "Does reality behave as expected, yes or no?". When reality does that, the science works. Why it behaves as expected is less important to know than the fact that is does behave as expected.

Take gravity for instance... we have no clue at all what gravity actually is, or why gravity is. We do know however how gravity works. The characteristics of gravity and its effect on us has been studied and is well understood. Now even if gravity is some kind of physical phenomenon or if it is really The Flying Spaghetti Monster that is tugging at everything does not really matter, as long as things behave in a predictable and consistent manner.

Evolution is like that as well. We have tested it, and it works. So even if "God" has decided to play a big prank on us by leaving all the clues that points to evolution, but in fact they did it themselves, then it does not matter all that much because Evolution still works. We tested it and it behaves as expected. So no, Evolution does not need to be re-written all that much.

That said...

...the whole grandiose display opens up a whole can factory of worms; that we suddenly have a previously unseen player on the cosmic arena, with obvious phenomenal powers. And for the first time we have evidence of their existence. This means that God moves from being an article of faith to a studyable physical phenomenon... they are not longer a subject of belief but can be studied by science. In short that is not a victory for faith but instead something quite fun for science to sink their teeth into.

This — as a side note — is why the Holy Zee was not at all keen on the movie Avatar, because in that movie, the "deity" — or whatever you wish to call it — was a very tangible and studyable phenomena, meaning that even the science character went "Oh, well that's interesting!". Religion has never been very happy with someone wanting to test its validity, which is — of course — as I stated above at the very heart of science.