Evolution (Redefined)

[Splendour]

Thought provoking video explaining what a scientific theory is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUppY9Va3AE

Its interesting to note that Sir Isaac Newton who beleived in intelligent design actually did formulate a theory: The Theory of Gravity in his work the Principia. But then Newton was more of a natural philosopher than a "scientist" of today. He was trying to understand how the mind of god worked out through creation. The great majority of the latter part of his life was devoted to the study of biblical prophecies since he believed the bible to be the inerrant word of God.

[TomCowley]

Don't even bother watching- standard word-twisting nonsense via use of multiple definitions out of context mixed in with the usual "it's only a theory" attack. D-

[tame_deuces]

Not speaking a bad word about Newton, he was a brilliant man. But indeed, his theistical views did interfere hard with some of his theories with some unfortunate sideeffects.

As a funny note it can be mentioned that his theistical view on the solar system was beaten to a pulp by a rather famous german philosopher.

It is important to understand that the academics of those days were often very broadly educated. Backgrounds from several disciplines were not uncommon and neither was theological background (actually it was very common as theologists had for many centuries been the academics of their time).

[Splendour]

Are you referring to Kant tame_deuces? Kant was a theist just like Newton. Its interesting they both arrive at the same conclusion just by different routes. In many senses Kant probably built on Newton. His work evolved from the study and correction of Newton. Only time will tell if he invalidated everything of Newton's, but human time as measured by an individual life is finite.

An excerpt on Kant from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/:

Kant was born in Königsberg; he spent his life there; he died there. At the age of forty-six, Kant received an appointment as a professor of logic and metaphysics at his alma mater the University of Königsberg. His famous claim: "Though our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises out of experience." A philosophical classic is his work Critique of Pure Reason wherein he asserts that our perceptual apparatus is capable of ordering sense-impressions into intelligible unities, which, while in themselves cannot be proven, we are led to conclude through "pure reason," that intelligible unities, such as God, freedom, and immortality, do exist; and that the formation of such intelligible unities are practical necessities for one's life. An admirer of Rousseau, Kant's work gave rise to the Idealist school (Fichte, Hegel and Schopenhauer).

Kant was of the view that while the existence of God could not be proven, we ought to come to a belief in God's existence by way of "logical understanding." Kant concluded that this world was not sufficient in itself, that an external power, which he identified with God, was a regulative necessity; and that God was a requisite for morality, it gives meaning to our life here on earth. The existence of God was, for Kant, but one of three postulates of morality, the other two being freedom of the will, and immortality of the soul. These moral axioms, unprovable as they are, existed for Kant simply because they were the sine qua non of the moral life. (So much for the notion that morality is something that arises from our own character, from our own intelligence: - I would argue that the acceptance of an external, all powerful being reduces us to mere servants; and, thus, there is no need for morals, there is but only the need to obey.)

Edit and Correction: excerpt is actually from http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Bi...sophy/Kant.htm

[tame_deuces]

Kant stated what everybody sensible on this forum states. That it is not possible to know if there is a god or an afterlife because of the limitations of reason, and neither can you know if there is not a god.

[bunny]

A brief synopsis for those interested. It starts with some definitions:
Theory "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"
Fact "the quality of being actual: a question of fact hinges on evidence"
Evidence "an outward sign;INDICATION b:something that furnishes proof;TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter"

Then says:
By a secular dictionary's own words evidence must be "an outward sign." Evidence must also be "something that furnishes proof." Evidence must come from a "testimony" or be an "indication". Definition #2 says that evidence must be "one who bears witness".

Next:
In order to have a theory, we must have facts. In order to have facts we must have evidence. That evidence must be proven to be true. Proving happens by testing, observing and demonstrating.

And finally:
Since evolution cannot be tested, demonstrated, repeated or observed; it cannot be a fact.

There's also a christian rock track featuring lines like "I used to trust in natural selection, my survival was all I could see. My evolving to perfection started when God rescued me."

I cant believe anyone is actually presenting this as an argument. Presumably it's a "rally the troops and all have a jolly good laugh at the atheists" kind of thing.

Can I ask you Splendour, (as I cant understand why you would post this, since it just makes creationists look bad) did you find this persuasive? Do you think evolution isnt even a theory? Or did you glean something else from it?

[tame_deuces]

Seriosusly, someone well versed in scientific philosophy and good language skills should write a simple science, logic, hypothesis, theory and falsification FAQ that should be stickied in this forum.

These semantic misunderstanding/misdirection arguments are getting old, and I'm even new here!

[Splendour]

metaphysical
2 entries found.

metaphysicalMetaphysical



Main Entry: meta·phys·i·cal
Pronunciation: \-ˈfi-zi-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to metaphysics
2 a: of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b: supernatural
3: highly abstract or abstruse; also : theoretical
4often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional imagery
— meta·phys·i·cal·ly \-k(ə-)lē\ adverb


Read the rest of the biography above. Without Kant's grasp of the transcendent science as we know it today wouldn't have progressed as much as it has. He moved away from matter to forces. Was there a leap in his reasoning?

[tame_deuces]

There is no doubt that what I said is what you can deduse from Kant's works. That he had some claims about God for practical purposes is besides the point.

And the dictionary is the reason why we are even having this thread, because some people use the word 'theory' as used in science like the word 'theory' like used in everyday speech.

And they are not the same.

To use an analogy it would be like me defining the word 'god' to mean 'ordinary human' and then every time you say something about god and miracles I jump up and shout 'but god is just a god!'

[Splendour]

But was there a leap made by Kant? How did he appply a metaphysical concept. The bio uses the word that he bridged. To go back and bridge didn't he have to leap first?