nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 54:
Line 54: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Definition of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 23:04, April 8, 2007
, 23:04, April 8, 2007→That particular definition: Classification systems don't need to be scientific; the removed "definition".
Consider that classification systems rely on logic to be affective, so the answer is yes all classification systems have to be scientific.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Consider that classification systems rely on logic to be affective, so the answer is yes all classification systems have to be scientific.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:Before I make my following remarks, I want to make absolutely clear that as a Christian, I reject astrology.
:I would think that a better word than "effective" would be "useful". Classifications need to be ''useful''. But that depends on what they are ''used'' for, and they can have different uses.
:An astrologer might decide to classify stars according to their (purported) effect on people's destinies. That sort of classification system would not be ''useful'' to an astronomer, but it would be ''useful'' to the astrologer. But it would not be "scientific".
:An alternative examples is railway gauges. Gauges are classified into ''narrow'', ''standard'', and ''broad''. I would not consider these to be ''scientific'' classifications (they are somewhat arbitrary), but it is a ''useful'' classification system nevertheless.
:So I reject that ''all'' classification systems ''have to be'' scientific.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Where is the "grand consensus" that one of the definitions of evolution does not include a leftist-atheist philosophy? The term "evolution" is not just used for strictly scientific concepts. Debates over evolution frequently discuss philosophical issues. That is true on both sides of the debate. Why is that? It is because people commonly use the term "evolution" to include philosophical beliefs. Maybe it would be better if everyone stuck to science, but that's just not the way it is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Where is the "grand consensus" that one of the definitions of evolution does not include a leftist-atheist philosophy? The term "evolution" is not just used for strictly scientific concepts. Debates over evolution frequently discuss philosophical issues. That is true on both sides of the debate. Why is that? It is because people commonly use the term "evolution" to include philosophical beliefs. Maybe it would be better if everyone stuck to science, but that's just not the way it is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, Roger, unless you decide to go off topic, that ''is'' the way it is. We are speaking of the scientific theory of evolution, not some vague 3rd dictionary meaning. To say otherwise is to either change the subject, or to try to [[Satan|deceive]].
Actually, Roger, unless you decide to go off topic, that ''is'' the way it is. We are speaking of the scientific theory of evolution, not some vague 3rd dictionary meaning. To say otherwise is to either change the subject, or to try to [[Satan|deceive]].
:When I get the chance, I'd like to do a bit of a cleanup on this article myself (if others don't beat me to it). I'd probably reinstate the deleted bit, but not ''as a definition'', because I don't believe that it is. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
== Gradual appearance of new forms of life ==
== Gradual appearance of new forms of life ==