62
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 26:
Line 26: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it? (view source)
Revision as of 12:11, March 25, 2009
, 12:11, March 25, 2009→Philosophy underpins your theory of everything
But in order to understand creationism fully, you have to come to philosophical terms with it. [[Edwin Hubble]] refused to come to terms with the thought that our [[galaxy]] is at the center of the [[universe]], and for that reason created a [[cosmology]] that says that the universe has no center. He had absolutely no warrant in his observations or in the laws of [[physics]] for that action. And he knew it, too, as [[John Hartnett]] clearly documents in his latest work, ''Starlight, Time and the New Physics''. He defended his anti-centrism purely on philosophical grounds. Now if a man like Edwin Hubble couldn't get away from philosophy, what makes you think you can?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 08:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
But in order to understand creationism fully, you have to come to philosophical terms with it. [[Edwin Hubble]] refused to come to terms with the thought that our [[galaxy]] is at the center of the [[universe]], and for that reason created a [[cosmology]] that says that the universe has no center. He had absolutely no warrant in his observations or in the laws of [[physics]] for that action. And he knew it, too, as [[John Hartnett]] clearly documents in his latest work, ''Starlight, Time and the New Physics''. He defended his anti-centrism purely on philosophical grounds. Now if a man like Edwin Hubble couldn't get away from philosophy, what makes you think you can?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 08:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:Sorry, Terry, but you're falling victim to some pretty common misconceptions.
::1. The so-called paradigm of methodological naturalism is a simple and accurate description of the scientific process. This website defines it as "the strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider scientific causes - even as a remote possibility." Another way to say this is that the scientists are attempting to observe and describe the natural world. They are not attempting to observe and describe the supernatural world, and so the supernatural world is intentionally left out with the assumption that there is no interaction between the two. Many people from both the fundamentalist and atheist camps nonetheless attempt to draw such conclusions from scientific findings; this is merely an attempt by them, usually unconscious, to find something not directly implied by the data which aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, and often this behavior is self-reinforcing. And while these unintentionally false interpretations of the science may be brick and mortar for their particular philosophies, science itself remains inherently neutral.
::(One could make the argument that there is no basis for the above-mentioned assumption that the supernatural world and the natural world do not interact, but such an argument would need to be backed with examples of events in the natural world for which no natural causes exist.)
::2. As you should infer from the above, we agree that people are wont to find meaning in the world around them. It doesn't change the goal of science, though.
::3. It's true: people who believe that humans share a relatively recent common ancestor with other modern primates also typically endorse the theory of evolution. But I do not see how this relates to, or should be the cause of, a lack of higher purpose. An evolutionary biologist may be as profoundly dedicated to bettering humanity as a missionary. Does it matter that their methods differ?
::4. Couldn't God have created man in His own image through the process of evolution? If you believe in God and accept radiometric dating, this seems like a pretty good explanation. And I'm talking about uranium-lead and samarium-neodymium dating, not just radiocarbon.
::5. The concept of uniformitarianism is completely and utterly at odds with modern quantum physics (which predicts that during a very brief period immediately following the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces -- strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational -- arose from one unified force), and as such is not representative of what's accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Meanwhile, abiogenesis is a field of study distinct from that of evolutionary biology. Indeed, evolutionary theory makes no predictions about how life came to be, only how it changes. That an individual might experience a similar strong opposition to these two and as they do to evolutionary theory does not make the three related in any way besides their conflict with that person's ideology. I'd be curious to read about some of these predictive models based on the creation paradigm, if you don't mind sharing links.
::6. This is a classic example of the logical fallacy ''appeal to authority''. You are implying that because Edwin Hubble was capable of arguing for something from purely ideological grounds, scientists in general and proponents of evolutionary theory in particular must therefore be ''incapable'' of ''not'' making claims based on ideology. If one prominent member of a group does something, the rest of the group will not necessarily behave the same way.
:For the record, I don't think science really has a philosophy besides the basic desire to understand the universe. Cheers! --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:11, 25 March 2009 (EDT)