And genetics were used to justify genocide and eugenics. By your logic are genetics absolutely evil?
The constitution of the US is interpreted by some in a way to justify the most horrific crimes against mankind. Is the constitution absolutely evil?
Many philosophers works were used by Fascists to justify their empires. Are those philosophers absolutely evil?
As for the designation as “fairy tale”. I would expect people that see themselves as scientists or following scientific principles to have their curiosity sparked if a 1400 years old book made statements that link to todays scientific discoveries, rather than immediately making a point of rejecting it in an aggressive way.
Look, you can do the same thing with any religious document. See for instance Jeremy England’s Every Life is on Fire in which he equates passages in the Torah about Moses to the thermodynamical necessity of the emergence of life as an autocatalytic process. The metaphor is tortured and the whole enterprise comes off as awkward and unnecessary. Scientific principles are entirely nihilistic; it’s our interpretations of them that make them magical. And those interpretations aren’t captured by any holy document.
What is your evidence of genetics? Unless you are a biochemist and have run experiments yourself, it will boil down to “somebody told me/I have read it in a book”. So your evidence boils down to a chain of narration. Which narrators you trust or distrust is a subjective matter.
Genetics are a great example though. Modern genetics are often perceived to start with the work of Mendel in the 19th century. Imagine instead of being taught about genetics in school and maybe later in university, you would have lived in the 17th century. Would you have rejected the concept of genes as “fairy tale” because there was no evidence you deemed credible available?
What about atomic models? Would you have considered them to be “fairy tales” prior to the developments of the late 19th and early 20th century? What about how atom models changed? Would you mock Nils Bohr because his atomic model became partly obsolete with the work of Heisenberg? Did you do any of the experiments which lead to the developments of atomic models yourself?
So in practice the only scientific approach is to say: “I have neither evidence that convinces me for or against it, therefore i don’t know”. Saying something is false or does not exist because you don’t see evidence for it, is a matter of faith, rather than a matter of science.
EDIT: As for the experiments, i had both the typical experiments for genetics in biochemistry and for atoms in physics lectures for my engineering degree. As for narrations there exist plenty of evidence for the life and work of the prophet Mohamed (sas.). Whether you accept it as evidence of prophethood is a subjective matter, just like it is a subjective matter if you believe your biology or your physics textbook, unless you have verified this information by your own experiments.
Evidence of genetics? Let’s see… DNA testing works? That enough for you? I know people who bred flies in school while learning genetics.
Or how about this, I understand how science works, so I’m comfortable accepting (in general), the scientific consensus on subjects that I don’t know very well. I really hate this, “did you get a PhD in x? No? Then how can you really know?” Bullshit.
Just an FYI, I didn’t read your comment past the first sentence and I have no intention of continuing this conversation.
So do you believe genes existed before genetic testing? What would you have said to someone suggesting genes exist before there were tests for them?
It is a quite simple question of whether you accept the possibility of things existing, before there is a scientific consensus on their existence. The scientific approach then is simply to say “i dont know” rather than “i dont know therefore it does not exist”. Because of this fallacy i also consider atheists to be people of faith rather than science. They should just not conflate the two and claim their faith to be science.
And genetics were used to justify genocide and eugenics. By your logic are genetics absolutely evil?
genetics are a constant truth, so the argument should be based from the perspective that genetics mean something, in regards to genocide and eugenics, not that genetics itself is flawed, because genetics didn’t create this perception, humans did.
edit: retards was a typo of regards lmao, what an unfortunate typo.
And genetics were used to justify genocide and eugenics. By your logic are genetics absolutely evil?
The constitution of the US is interpreted by some in a way to justify the most horrific crimes against mankind. Is the constitution absolutely evil? Many philosophers works were used by Fascists to justify their empires. Are those philosophers absolutely evil?
As for the designation as “fairy tale”. I would expect people that see themselves as scientists or following scientific principles to have their curiosity sparked if a 1400 years old book made statements that link to todays scientific discoveries, rather than immediately making a point of rejecting it in an aggressive way.
Look, you can do the same thing with any religious document. See for instance Jeremy England’s Every Life is on Fire in which he equates passages in the Torah about Moses to the thermodynamical necessity of the emergence of life as an autocatalytic process. The metaphor is tortured and the whole enterprise comes off as awkward and unnecessary. Scientific principles are entirely nihilistic; it’s our interpretations of them that make them magical. And those interpretations aren’t captured by any holy document.
Genetics are real and we have an inconceivable amount of evidence to support them.
What do you have? Because you’ve got a Nobel Prize (and much more) waiting for you if you’re holding back some evidence.
What is your evidence of genetics? Unless you are a biochemist and have run experiments yourself, it will boil down to “somebody told me/I have read it in a book”. So your evidence boils down to a chain of narration. Which narrators you trust or distrust is a subjective matter.
Genetics are a great example though. Modern genetics are often perceived to start with the work of Mendel in the 19th century. Imagine instead of being taught about genetics in school and maybe later in university, you would have lived in the 17th century. Would you have rejected the concept of genes as “fairy tale” because there was no evidence you deemed credible available?
What about atomic models? Would you have considered them to be “fairy tales” prior to the developments of the late 19th and early 20th century? What about how atom models changed? Would you mock Nils Bohr because his atomic model became partly obsolete with the work of Heisenberg? Did you do any of the experiments which lead to the developments of atomic models yourself?
So in practice the only scientific approach is to say: “I have neither evidence that convinces me for or against it, therefore i don’t know”. Saying something is false or does not exist because you don’t see evidence for it, is a matter of faith, rather than a matter of science.
EDIT: As for the experiments, i had both the typical experiments for genetics in biochemistry and for atoms in physics lectures for my engineering degree. As for narrations there exist plenty of evidence for the life and work of the prophet Mohamed (sas.). Whether you accept it as evidence of prophethood is a subjective matter, just like it is a subjective matter if you believe your biology or your physics textbook, unless you have verified this information by your own experiments.
Evidence of genetics? Let’s see… DNA testing works? That enough for you? I know people who bred flies in school while learning genetics.
Or how about this, I understand how science works, so I’m comfortable accepting (in general), the scientific consensus on subjects that I don’t know very well. I really hate this, “did you get a PhD in x? No? Then how can you really know?” Bullshit.
Just an FYI, I didn’t read your comment past the first sentence and I have no intention of continuing this conversation.
So do you believe genes existed before genetic testing? What would you have said to someone suggesting genes exist before there were tests for them?
It is a quite simple question of whether you accept the possibility of things existing, before there is a scientific consensus on their existence. The scientific approach then is simply to say “i dont know” rather than “i dont know therefore it does not exist”. Because of this fallacy i also consider atheists to be people of faith rather than science. They should just not conflate the two and claim their faith to be science.
genetics are a constant truth, so the argument should be based from the perspective that genetics mean something, in regards to genocide and eugenics, not that genetics itself is flawed, because genetics didn’t create this perception, humans did.
edit: retards was a typo of regards lmao, what an unfortunate typo.