Is evolution a religion?

bhavv said:
How penicillin works is not a theory, it is a fact with repeatable methods which fully explain how it works.

I read Vonhelmet's post very clearly. you probably didnt.
Click to expand...

Uggh, you are so damn infernally infuriating!! *shakes fist at the moon* :p

Let's get rid of the words fact and theory for a brief paragraph. I believe that you can use 'repeatable methods' (observation by experiment) to demonstrate how penicillin works. Our understanding of this is falsifiable, which means it can be shown to be wrong, but it hasn't been. Our understanding of it is comprehensive.

Does this make it 'truthful' or 'factual'? Well, yes and no. YES, in the sense that everything we know supports it and practically speaking it provides the result we expect time and time again. There appears to be very little that we do not understand about it. On the other hand, there will always be a NO, in the sense that our methodology might be wrong and we take assumptions for granted. In microbiology, this includes the very lowest level, the atomic level, as well as higher cellular levels.

For example, when RNA virus immune crops were first planed and grown for harvest in the US, the world had a very clear idea on how this technology worked. The transformed plants would produce viral coat protein in their own tissue and as this would be in such high abundance in each cell, the invading viruses could not unwrap - the plant protein would replace the viral protein and stop viral replication occurring. By your own logic, this would be factual as it could be demonstrated by experiment. Or so we thought.

Over a decade past and in the late 90s, scientists found out this was utter crap. It was shown that this in fact did not happen and nobody had a clue how it was working. All they knew was that it worked. The theory was wrong. It was later discovered that by causing the plants to replicate viral DNA, this was pre-empting the plant's RNA dicer system to shred up the viral DNA before it could replicate - an immunity of sorts. Very clever. But this demonstrates why we do not say theory is factual.

The point it, as there is always the no element, it would be downright foolish to regard scientific theory as providing 'truth'. That would be reading in-between lines to find things that need not be read. Observations and facts are taken to form theories, but those observations themselves can be based on other theories (how the beta-lactam ring breaks down at an atomic level, to use penicillin as an example).

The correct approach to take is to avoid using the word 'truth' when talking about broad scientific subjects altogether, as generally it's completely unsuitable. Whilst things may appear 'factual' in a practical sense, in the context of philosophical conversation broader scientific observations rarely are 'factual' as they are largely based on much theoretical workings. This is not to say that they are not likely to be correct, far from it! Is it simply that science is limited in a philosophical scope - if you are from a scientific background, as you state you are, then you should acknowledge this.

Rather than say 'our understanding of penicillin is factual', it is much better to say 'we have a fully comprehensive understanding of penicillin based on our current observations and our current understandings of the universe'. I would allow you to say the former in a strictly scientific conversation, but not a philosophical one such as this one, because it's grossly inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
I'm not reading all that btw. Actually, I wont read any of it.

...

I hate RNA / DNA stuff. It was the hardest crap I had to learn to pass my exams, but I somehow got an A in my genetics module exam.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
Uggh, you are so damn infernally infuriating!! *shakes fist at the moon* :p

Let's get rid of the words fact and theory for a brief paragraph. I believe that you can use 'repeatable methods' (observation by experiment) to demonstrate how penicillin works. Our understanding of this is falsifiable, which means it can be shown to be wrong, but it hasn't been. Our understanding of it is comprehensive.

Does this make it 'truthful' or 'factual'? Well, yes and no. YES, in the sense that everything we know supports it and practically speaking it provides the result we expect time and time again. There appears to be very little that we do not understand about it. On the other hand, there will always be a NO, in the sense that our methodology might be wrong and we take assumptions for granted. In microbiology, this includes the very lowest level, the atomic level, as well as higher cellular levels.

For example, when RNA virus immune crops were first planed and grown for harvest in the US, the world had a very clear idea on how this technology worked. The transformed plants would produce viral coat protein in their own tissue and as this would be in such high abundance in each cell, the invading viruses could not unwrap - the plant protein would replace the viral protein and stop viral replication occurring. By your own logic, this would be factual as it could be demonstrated by experiment. Or so we thought.

Over a decade past and in the late 90s, scientists found out this was utter crap. It was shown that this in fact did not happen and nobody had a clue how it was working. All they knew was that it worked. The theory was wrong. It was later discovered that by causing the plants to replicate viral DNA, this was pre-empting the plant's RNA dicer system to shred up the viral DNA before it could replicate - an immunity of sorts. Very clever. But this demonstrates why we do not say theory is factual.

The point it, as there is always the no element, it would be downright foolish to regard scientific theory as providing 'truth'. That would be reading in-between lines to find things that need not be read. Observations and facts are taken to form theories, but those observations themselves can be based on other theories (how the beta-lactam ring breaks down at an atomic level, to use penicillin as an example).

The correct approach to take is to avoid using the word 'truth' when talking about scientific subjects altogether, but it's completely unsuitable. Whilst things may appear 'factual' in a practical sense, in the context of philosophical conversation broader scientific observations rarely are 'factual' as they are largely based on much theoretical workings. This is not to say that they are not likely to be correct, far from it! Is it simply that science is limited in a philosophical scope - if you are from a scientific background, as you state you are, then you should acknowledge this.

Rather than say 'our understanding of penicillin is factual', it is much better to say 'we have a fully comprehensive understanding of penicillin based on our current observations and our current understandings of the universe'. I would allow you to say the former in a strictly scientific conversation, but not a philosophical one such as this one, because it's grossly inappropriate.
Click to expand...

Using a penicilin and evolution in this debate is like comparing an apple to the moon. We have so much data on penicilin it is 99.999% fact. Whilst with evolution there are so many gaping holes, so much debunked evidence and so much guess work it is miles away from being scientific fact.
 
Craterloads said:
Using a penicilin and evolution in this debate is like comparing an apple to the moon. We have so much data on penicilin it is 99.999% fact. Whilst with evolution there are so many gaping holes, so much debunked evidence and so much guess work it is miles away from being sceintific fact.
Click to expand...

Source?
 
Craterloads said:
Using a penicilin and evolution in this debate is like comparing an apple to the moon. We have so much data on penicilin it is 99.999% fact. Whilst with evolution there are so many gaping holes, so much debunked evidence and so much guess work it is miles away from being scientific fact.
Click to expand...

Your use of the phrase 'scientific fact' simply shows how much you have to learn on the subject. Best of luck in your quest.
 
Nitefly said:
Your use of the phrase 'scientific fact' simply shows how much you have to learn on the subject. Best of luck in your quest.
Click to expand...

Seems like evolutionist's like to play around with the term fact a lot. On one hand evolution is fact you claim and when questioned about it you play the "what is fact" card.
 
Evolution IS fact. How it occurs AKA natural selection is theory and there are still a lot of things left to be explained.
 
Last edited:
Craterloads said:
I will counter and say you are an imbecile, you have stooped as low as name calling because you cant accept the fact that evolution is not fact.
Click to expand...

You are delusional.

That is not name calling. It is a simple statement of fact. You deny the existence of something which is utterly proven to exist. You are on a level with someone who denies the existence of water.

Humans have been using evolution as a tool for millenia. Evolution affects us all, profoundly. Your claim that evolution isn't a fact is beyond ludicrous. It's genuinely delusional.
 
see the religious nuts have no evidence to backup the the poppycock that the bible says,i'mm surprized at how many people still go to church these days,though the numbers are in decline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom