The differences between a logically developed argument, a scientific fact and an absolute truth: part 1
Way back in 2007, I completed a subject ‘Issues in the Sciences’ as part of my Graduate Diploma of Sciences Communication through Central Queensland University.
I’ve been re-reading some of my assignments recently: here I present part 1 of an essay addressing the differences between a logically developed argument, a scientific fact and an absolute truth:
Many Christians believe that humans were designed and constructed by a superior power. Life on Earth is regarded by scientists however as having evolved from common ancestors according to Darwin’s theory of evolution. The difference between the terms absolute truth, scientific fact and logically-developed argument can be be demonstrated by reference to the differing world views, or paradigms, of those who believe in divine creation of life (and literal interpretation of the Bible) and followers of evolutionary succession respectively.
An average individual living in 18th Century Western Christian Society had his or her world defined almost entirely by the Church. Humanity’s history, place in the world and future were all explained by the Bible and its powerful interpreters. Such was the absolute truth of that Christian system, absolute truth being defined here as an ultimate and indisputable truism which is not comparative or relative. There was no room for conjecture or alternative theories in this paradigm. An absolute truth according to this example also has an element of morality or values attached to it, with faith in the absolute truth of Christianity being rewarded with acceptance into Church society and a pleasant existence in the afterlife.
[continued Day 339]
[image thanks to celebdu on flickr]