Does anyone claiming that any scientific theory yet to become a scientific law is a RELIGION even grasp?

Question

the very basic definition of science, or religion?

This remedial stuff is getting tedious.

I guess scientific theories are a "religion" merely because religious people say they are, just like they say the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true.

Science is always in flux; religion isn't supposed to be question. How can you even compare the two?

Along the same lines how is the absence of religion .... a religion in itself?! If people weren't babbling about religion in a school, how would ANY body be indoctrinating anyone with ANY thing??

How much moralizing is riding on the proving or disproving of quantum mechanics?
How much is riding on proving the infallability of a holy book?

See the difference yet?

No scientist has "faith" in any unproven theory. The very lack of "faith" in this construct is why they are constantly TESTING the theories! Duh

Answer 1

Theories are backed up by facts; solid evidence that all can see or feel. No scientist worships these facts. No scientists claim these facts are going to damn or bless anyone. The great thing about science is that anyone can walk up and test out theories, they don't have to simply listen to what is told to them. Science deals nil time with the [truly] supernatural.

Religion, however, deals almost entirely with the supernatural.

Answer 2

Science does not take anecdotes as an infaliability like religion does, all facts in science are not simply declared, instead they are tested multiple times in a controled experimental setting and then peer reveiwed by the scientific community to check if other factors may have been overlooked. Then after repeated multiple trials with consistant results is then what makes scientific evidence fact. However there is still always the chance that a scientist may discover an atypical phenomina that may prove exceptions to the rules and then try to theorize on its cause. Never does a scientist say that Einstein said its true so it should be considered true without question. The only reason stuff like Newtons laws are treated somewhat biblically is because scientists have repeatedly tried and tried to find exceptions to those laws for hundreds of years (or possibly thousands) and never came across any exception. Therefore they decided that continously trying to find an exception to those laws may be fruitless research. But they are always somewhat open to a possibility of some exception to be stumbled upon. There are however some scientific evidence supporting some statements in the bible as there are as much that state against the bible. For example biologists have traced multiple human DNA samples from random people on different parts of the earth and noticed it all traced back to a gene of the same male and female found somewhere in Kenya therefore showing the possibility Adam and Eve existed. But there is also evidence that other humans were present at that time, showing that "Adam and Eve" may have been the only humans that survived natural selection and started the evolution of modern humans through random gene mutations as other humans at that time had less evolved traits that were less adaptable and were unfit to survive the elements. Further tracing back from "Adam" and "Eve" leads to lesser evolved humans then to apes and then protozoa. So some things may have partial truth in biblical text but does not mean it should be considered fact. In fact something being written or said by someone is never considered as absolute truth in science. In fact there technically is no absolute truth in science, just consistant results after unabative attempts usually concluded as true the same as we assume the sun will come up in the morning (yet its possible a day may come were it does not, but it would not be fruitful research to watch the sunrise every mourning expect one time were it does not happen.)

Answer 3

They ignore the scientific definitions of law and theory, then go to the least applicable lat-definition and use that. The semantic deceit is atrocious. They would rather believe (by blind faith) that a theory does not have extensive testing behind it. Once they have ignored the facts, they can accuse others of blind faith by pretending they did the same.

Answer 4

It merely requires a certain amount of faith. For though it may be backed up by a certain amount of evidence, it yet remains a step below something which can be held in the same esteem as a proven fact. This is demonstrated by the numerous scientific theories which were later made obsolete by new discoveries and resulting paradigm shifts in our thinking (the geocentric theory for instance).

*Edit: I assure you, the majority of evolutionists have "faith" in evolution....

Answer 5

1. Dipping bandages in boiling water in a cauldron with herbs. Clergy mark it as a the work of Satan.
2. Dipping bandages in boiling water in a cauldron with herbs. Science accepts the theory of sterilization, but mostly ignores it because they are good religious believers. Clergy mark it as a the work of Satan.
3. Sterilizing all medical tools and bandages in steam or boiling water accepted fully by Science. Churches finally give in and don't declare the users of a scientific law, Witches.

Answer 6

Theories are just theories until they are proven. They are often lifted to the level of "fact" through acts of faith and not through science.

Evolution is a theory so believing in it takes faith.

Answer 7

A scientific theory is not a religion.

Blind faith in a scientific theory is.

Answer 8

science... theory.... gravity
religion... theory.... adultery
which is automatically enforced...