Difference between revisions of "Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?"
(setting up the question in a balanced way) |
(→NO) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==NO== | ==NO== | ||
| + | == Philosophy underpins your theory of everything == | ||
| + | The [[Theory of Evolution]]—and more particularly the paradigm of methodological naturalism of which it is a key pillar—is part and parcel of a philosophical movement. Therefore, one cannot separate the two. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Science]] has never truly been value-free. One's values, and one's worldview, inform one's interpretation of the data. Only the most obviously inexplicable findings (like, for example, the [[Venus#Phases of Venus|phases of Venus]], can ever topple a widely-held worldview, and usually that toppling produces social upheavals that are almost [[earthquake|seismic]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If, therefore, you want to believe that [[Human|man]] is a close cousin to the great apes and has no higher purpose to serve than his own temporary existence, then the [[Theory of Evolution]] is for you. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If, on the other hand, you accept the idea that [[God]] [[Creation|created]] man in His own image and likeness, and gave man a definite purpose, then [[creationism]] is for you. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Now as it happens, the paradigm of methodological naturalism, that includes [[uniformitarianism]], [[abiogenesis]], and "common descent" (which is what the Theory of Evolution is all about), is already racking up a lot of "Phases of Venus" moments. I have documented several in my [[Solar System]] edits over the last few months. This while the creation paradigm is now producing models with definite predictive value. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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) | ||
Revision as of 12:56, May 24, 2008
| ! | THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting |
|
Some people say that the science of Evolution can be researched and studied without getting into any philosophical, metaphysical or religious issues. Others say that both research and study are too closely connected with other issues to be dealt with separately. Which is right, and why?
YES
NO
Philosophy underpins your theory of everything
The Theory of Evolution—and more particularly the paradigm of methodological naturalism of which it is a key pillar—is part and parcel of a philosophical movement. Therefore, one cannot separate the two.
Science has never truly been value-free. One's values, and one's worldview, inform one's interpretation of the data. Only the most obviously inexplicable findings (like, for example, the phases of Venus, can ever topple a widely-held worldview, and usually that toppling produces social upheavals that are almost seismic.
If, therefore, you want to believe that man is a close cousin to the great apes and has no higher purpose to serve than his own temporary existence, then the Theory of Evolution is for you.
If, on the other hand, you accept the idea that God created man in His own image and likeness, and gave man a definite purpose, then creationism is for you.
Now as it happens, the paradigm of methodological naturalism, that includes uniformitarianism, abiogenesis, and "common descent" (which is what the Theory of Evolution is all about), is already racking up a lot of "Phases of Venus" moments. I have documented several in my Solar System edits over the last few months. This while the creation paradigm is now producing models with definite predictive value.
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?--TerryHTalk 08:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)