Difference between revisions of "Talk:Definition of evolution"
(that Earth is insignificant?) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Materially insignificant, possibly - there are billions of other stars and planets. However you will find a wide range of opinion within the scientific community on the question of "life other places" or even "intelligent life other places". To this extent Earth is very significant, it is the only planet in the universe where life is known to exist. I don't think you will find anyone in the group of 'leftist-atheist' who will claim that in terms of life, the earth is insignificant. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT) | Materially insignificant, possibly - there are billions of other stars and planets. However you will find a wide range of opinion within the scientific community on the question of "life other places" or even "intelligent life other places". To this extent Earth is very significant, it is the only planet in the universe where life is known to exist. I don't think you will find anyone in the group of 'leftist-atheist' who will claim that in terms of life, the earth is insignificant. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The most materialist of scientists would likely argue that while the Earth may or may not be unique, it is certainly significant, being the place where we evolved and live. See the anthropic principle.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:52, March 27, 2007
Highly informative expansion of my stub. Never know that about the "nothing makes sense" quote, which I gather gets taken out of context a lot.--Ed Poor 12:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Some may say that we should settle on the correct definition, and stick with that. But I think that it is clear that several definitions are in common use. I would also like definitions that pro-evolution folks are happy with. RSchlafly 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
There is a lot of potential here. The lefty thing is a bit annoying, perhaps because it hit too close to home...that being said and disclosed, it is not actually a common scientific interpretation as stated. If you were to add a pure atheist view of evolution, you might say something like,
- Evolution completely explains life on Earth, with no need for recourse to supernatural causes. Evolution is amoral."
PalMD 15:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, the last definition is really philosophy and not science. I would exclude it, except that it really comes into debates about evolution. I just added a couple of references that say that unplanned, unguided, and random are part of evolution. RSchlafly 15:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks for adding the bit about unguided evolution. My attempts to wedge that into Wikipedia is what got JoshuaZ and company to have me put on probation. (Bitter, and proud!) --Ed Poor 15:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
that Earth is insignificant?
Materially insignificant, possibly - there are billions of other stars and planets. However you will find a wide range of opinion within the scientific community on the question of "life other places" or even "intelligent life other places". To this extent Earth is very significant, it is the only planet in the universe where life is known to exist. I don't think you will find anyone in the group of 'leftist-atheist' who will claim that in terms of life, the earth is insignificant. --Mtur 15:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
The most materialist of scientists would likely argue that while the Earth may or may not be unique, it is certainly significant, being the place where we evolved and live. See the anthropic principle.PalMD 15:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)