|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Scientific theories | by admeralthrawn | 2007-01-22 18:42:00 |
|
Definition of terms | by run.dll | 2007-01-22 19:46:20 |
| Yes, ish. |
by admeralthrawn |
2007-01-22 19:54:14 |
Evolution of species in a lab setting has been observed. However, what most people refer to as the "Theory of Evolution" with a capitol T and E is the idea that on a much larger scale, all living things arose and diverged by this process. This is far from being proven (in the philosophical sense that nothing can be proven). In a sense, breeding in a lab is an example of intelligent design (where the scientists doing the experiments are the intelligence behind the process).
Again, in a philosophical sense, gravity is not a "fact" either - it's something that appears to be true without being provable. I hesitate to invoke the "maybe we're in the Matrix" argument, but it's an adequate shorthand for the better philosophical arguments as to why observation cannot, in a fundamental way, confirm facts.
Within that context, there are no facts, really. Within a more limited context, sure, knock yourself out, but if you want to argue with a hardcore (but otherwise intelligent) religious fundie, invoking the word "fact" is a little dangerous. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Thud. "Thus I refute Berkeley." | by run.dll | 2007-01-22 20:02:22 |
|
But did you? | by admeralthrawn | 2007-01-22 20:14:56 |
|
Nope. | by run.dll | 2007-01-22 20:24:19 |
|
BTW | by run.dll | 2007-01-22 20:30:54 |
|
No, no, no.... | by Stuka | 2007-01-22 20:51:04 |
|
Right | by admeralthrawn | 2007-01-22 22:18:23 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
