Dissent From Darwin

[Subfallen]

Let me put this as simply as I can: when it comes to epistemological questions, you're presuming to know what an "answer" looks like. What I'm telling you is: philosophy isn't even close to getting that far.

Every post you make about "no meaning without God, no truth without God" is an insanely arrogant presupposition that you have a useful definition of "truth" and "meaning."

YOU DON'T. STOP PRETENDING LIKE YOU DO.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
...the current fad of evolution is of course falsifiable because they can freely rewrite evolution to accomodate the new facts. So evolution is absolutely certain until something is shown wrong, then rewrite and occurs, and hey, presto, evolution is absolutely certain again.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't how scientific theories work at all. Nothing in science is absolutely certain at any time. All accepted theories are nothing more than the best explanation we currently have that can explain and predict empirical observation. In scientific terms, Newton's Laws were "true", and had no quantifiable reason to be considered inaccurate. That is, until we ventured into relativity and electromagnetism and discovered inconsistencies. Relativity refined the theories of motion and gravity to the point that we can now say they explain and predict empirical observation to the best of our ability. In no way is science considered a dogma to be unquestionably believed on faith alone and changed upon the introduction of inconvenient "facts".

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

where on earth (or heaven) do you get this from


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think Darwinism was accepted almost universally by science almost over night, at least by the standards of the day? It clearly wasn't because of the evidence, the lack of which concerned even Darwin.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh I see. You think all scientists grasped enthusiastically at the theory of evolution because of some desire to maintain god's non-existance.

nuff said

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that's the position of the Logical Positivists, that Religion, being beyond the scope of science, talks about things that are not meaningfully real and thus should be ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is exactly the misunderstanding I'm talking about. Logical positivism died 60 years ago. It merely exposed the basic problem: we need a metaphysics that provides for evaluating the meaning/truth of empirical claims. But how can we ground a useful meta-empirical methodology when scientific claims cannot be logically verified, but only empirically falsified? How do we ultimately draw the line between logical categories and actual ones?

There are no easy answers, and certainly none that have achieved ultimate consensus. Great work remains to be done. The problem is when people like NotReady imagine that there is some clean distinction between philosophical and scientific, between logical necessity and actual necessity. There simply isn't anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know what NotReady thinks about a "clean distinction between philosophical and scientific, between logical necessity and actual necessity". But you quoted me and I was talking about a distinction between Religion and Science. I'm really not too sure what philosophers do. I'm pretty sure they don't get their stuff from "divine revelation". And I'm quite sure I didn't assert the "clean distinction between philosophical and scientific, between logical necessity and actual necessity" because I don't even know what that means.

PairTheBoard

[Subfallen]

I like your posts, so I'm not trying to be mean, but if you're 60 years out of date on the philosophy of science, you might not want to say things like:

[ QUOTE ]
The scientific view of Religion is that Religion is not relevant to science simply because it is beyond the scope of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't any such "scientific view", because nobody is quite sure what constitutes science at the moment. And certainly not what is "beyond its scope."

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

I've said many times I know of no competent theologian who questions micro-evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] I hate this [censored] argument. Anyone have a citation for who the first person to use the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution was, and when?

$5 says it was in the last 20 years...

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've said many times I know of no competent theologian who questions micro-evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] I hate this [censored] argument. Anyone have a citation for who the first person to use the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution was, and when?

$5 says it was in the last 20 years...

[/ QUOTE ]
Iuri'i Filipchenko- Variabilität und Variation, 1927. They are scientific, though the terms mean patently different things when used by scientists rather than creationists.

EDIT: As an aside, Iuri'i was an "evolution by direction" proponent.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I like your posts, so I'm not trying to be mean, but if you're 60 years out of date on the philosophy of science, you might not want to say things like:

[ QUOTE ]
The scientific view of Religion is that Religion is not relevant to science simply because it is beyond the scope of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't any such "scientific view", because nobody is quite sure what constitutes science at the moment. And certainly not what is "beyond its scope."

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Leave it to philosophy to determine that nobody ever really knows what it is they're talking about or whether what they're saying about it is true.

PairTheBoard

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Leave it to philosophy to determine that nobody ever really knows what it is they're talking about...

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide a counter-example. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I've said many times I know of no competent theologian who questions micro-evolution. I know of no solid evidence for one common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then I suggest you acquaint yourself with the evidence. The evidence in support of common descent is overwhelming. That's why the Catholic Church itself, via the International Theological Commission, says:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

Paragraph 63:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ardship_en.html

Perhaps you're wiser than the learned Theistic Council, who took two years to study this evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Even one common ancestor doesn't preclude God.

[/ QUOTE ]
I again repeat that understanding the overwhelming evidence for macroevolution and common descent has nothing whatsoever to do with God. Perhaps if you're small minded. But don't change the subject. The post you made here (and others) are about how Darwin's theory of natural selection is unproven and disagreed with. You are flat out wrong, and if you had any respect for your God you'd admit that.