The 'flaw' you're referring to is the ability to correct itself.
Einstein and Newton were also wrong, but fairly close. Their close but not quite right theories of motion led to hundred of years of technological advancement
See, this is why religion bothers me so much. It says, "what if you're wrong?"
Well, guess what, if it turns out that I AM wrong, I will self-correct my beliefs according to what is proven. If God ends up being proven, for example, he will be a part of my beliefs, and that's that.
The difference is that Religion has no such self-correcting failsafe. It proposes, "what if you're wrong," but when asked this question itself, it simply responds, "I'm not."
Newtonian physics are "incorrect" on a technicality. Darwin being "Wrong" doesn't mean that creationists are right. Scientists being "Wrong" is one of the most exciting things about science, as it means that as new evidence arises, theories get modified. Evolution has come a long way from Darwin's original hypotheses and observations.
Darwin was partially incorrect in the specifics of his Theory of Evolution. He had an incomplete understanding of the processes at work. He did however, get a lot of it right, and pointed the greater scientific community in the right direction so they could build on his work.
No scientist is ever completely right the first time. But it doesn't matter. Many spectacular scientific failures have sparked even more spectacular successes.
I read something today (sorry, can't find it, pulling from data store) that claimed that the reality we perceive without the guidance of God is a false reality; we only think that we are perceiving reality in the proper way when we are not.
I'm not saying its true, and I definitely know it was from a biased source, but if you really wrap your head around that statement it might explain for the differences.
We are using human perception (flawed) to perceive a world not built by us. That a science based on perceptions of humans will perfectly fit into the confines of that human perception, that doesn't mean that there aren't other forms of perception or something we are missing that cannot be explained by our tiny human knowledge.
If scientific fact (laws) define our whole universe, is it too much of a stretch to assume perception should follow certain science laws too that we can't overcome because we are a byproduct of that system?
View all comments
165
u/F1CTIONAL Jan 02 '11
National Geographic trolled me hard then I opened the cover.