Evolution Cruncher

Originally posted by no1marauder
ALL science starts with the "claim" that events are explainable by natural causes alone; so unless you want to scrap all science and send messages by big fires rather than by e-mail, telephone, etc. I believe you will have to rethink your anti-science position.

Untrue. You are describing a narrow subset of science. Mathematics, logic, philosophy, theology, are all sciences and do not assume an empirical epistemology. Only the "natural" sciences have adopted this philosophy, with biology being the one most harmed by it.

Originally posted by Coletti
Untrue. You are describing a narrow subset of science. Mathematics, logic, philosophy, theology, are all sciences and do not assume an empirical epistemology. Only the "natural" sciences have adopted this philosophy, with biology being the one most harmed by it.

Thank you Coletti. And I do understand the implications of allowing "miracles" to be recognized in the sciences. Perhaps it is dangerous to all of science to allow the explanation "God did it." As you will notice, I did not say natural philosophy was a BAD thing for science; it is probably the ONLY starting set of assumptions upon which science can function. However, this does not protect the theory of evolution or any other theory from rigorous testing and skepticism. It is erroneous to reject any explanations that conflict with naturalistic philosphy simply because it is contrary to the a priori assumptions of science. As Coletti pointed out, we must rely on philosophy, theology, etc. to decide which explanation is true.

Originally posted by Coletti
Untrue. You are describing a narrow subset of science. Mathematics, logic, philosophy, theology, are all sciences and do not assume an empirical epistemology. Only the "natural" sciences have adopted this philosophy, with biology being the one most harmed by it.

So is baseball a science using your non-standard definitions. Let's see polio cured, smallpox cured, people living longer, etc. etc., I'd say modern biology is doing just fine. Perhaps you'd explain how "natural sciences" could function by adopting your absurd notions that they should ignore explanations of empirical facts which clash with a peculiar interpretation of Scripture. Do you think a computer could have been built relying on the all-important "revelatory" "facts" of the Bible?

Originally posted by PawnCurry

I guess the point I'm trying to get across is... I can agree that God created space, time and matter... but all the evidence that I can see points to a Universe greater than 6000 years old.

What evidence?

Originally posted by yousers
Sorry to intrude on the conversation. You are mistaken on rejecting connection between the Big Bang and evolutionary theory. Both are strongly rooted in naturalistic philosophy. In other words, they start with a priori claims that all ev ...[text shortened]... down with it. And, the same occurs if we refute the Big Bang.....

The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. Supernaturalism is not ruled out a priori; it is left out because it has never been reliably observed. There are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

Evolution does not in any way rule out the possibility of any outside influence, even divine influence. When evidence for outside influence has been observed, it has been included.

Science does not include anything that leaves no evidence that might be tested. Hypotheses that can be asserted but never supported are not part of science. However, these untestable phenomena are only removed from scientific consideration; they are not ruled out from life entirely. People are free to accept or reject them as they please, and science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject. Science not only rules out the acceptance of divine influence; it also rules out the rejection of divine influence.

Evolution is not alone in its naturalism. All science, all engineering, all manufacturing, and most other human endeavors are equally naturalistic. If we must discard evolution because of this philosophy, then we must also discard navigation, meteorology, farming, architecture, printing, law, and virtually all other subjects for the same reason.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html

Originally posted by Coletti
Untrue. You are describing a narrow subset of science. Mathematics, logic, philosophy, theology, are all sciences and do not assume an empirical epistemology. Only the "natural" sciences have adopted this philosophy, with biology being the one most harmed by it.

philosophy is a science? Where?

Theology is a science! Maybe at one of these fine institutions:

http://www.patriotuniversity.com/
http://www.liberty.edu/
http://www.bju.edu/

In other words, one of these types of schools:
http://www.elearners.com/resources/diploma-mills.asp

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]but all the evidence that I can see points to a Universe greater than 6000 years old.

What evidence?[/b]

How about geological eveidence? Glacial? Fossil records?

Originally posted by David C
How about geological eveidence? Glacial? Fossil records?

They're all dated incorrectly.🙄🙄

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I guess the point I'm trying to get across is... I can agree that God created space, time and matter... but all the evidence that I can see points to a Universe greater than 6000 years old.

What evidence?[/b]

Are you planning on answering my question? I'd really love to talk to you about macroevolution, but I need to know what you think it is. Please inform us all what distinquishes macroevolution from microevolution. It would be wonderful if you could do this in your own words, but if you would prefer to plagiarize, I understand.

Originally posted by telerion
philosophy is a science? Where?

Theology is a science! Maybe at one of these fine institutions:

http://www.patriotuniversity.com/
http://www.liberty.edu/
http://www.bju.edu/

In other words, one of these types of schools:
http://www.elearners.com/resources/diploma-mills.asp

systematic body of knowledge: any
systematically organized body of knowledge
about a specific subject
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

What would disqualify these fields from being sciences?

Originally posted by Coletti

systematic body of knowledge: any
systematically organized body of knowledge
about a specific subject
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

What would disqualify these fields from being sciences?

By this definition, a card catalogue counts as a science.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So is baseball a science using your non-standard definitions. Let's see polio cured, smallpox cured, people living longer, etc. etc., I'd say modern biology is doing just fine. Perhaps you'd explain how "natural sciences" could function by adopting your absurd notions that they should ignore explanations of empirical facts which clash with ...[text shortened]... mputer could have been built relying on the all-important "revelatory" "facts" of the Bible?

I am not suggesting that science should change its method of function. And I did not say ANYTHING about scripture (so don't pin that bullseye on me). The point is, I made an observation about biology and its foundations. Yes, you are right - it works wonderfully and brings us great things. More power to science. BUT, it is based on assumptions of naturalistic philosophy. Are those assumptions true?
Does that mean any explanation other than evolution is crap?
Perhaps you say, yes because we are moving on empiricle evidence with science. I beg to differ for the case of evolution. Have you ever seen a species arise from another species? Have you seen chemical abiogenesis?
Maybe empiricism will never get us an explanation of how life became what it is today.

Originally posted by yousers
Have you ever seen a species arise from another species?

If, by 'species', you mean what biologists mean when they employ the Biological Species Concept, then yes. If you mean something other than that by 'species', then please elucidate what precisely you mean by 'species'.

Originally posted by bbarr
By this definition, a card catalogue counts as a science.

That's true. 🙂

But the idea that science is limited to the likes of biology and chemistry was not always the case. The first scientists were philosophers, Thales, Aristotle, Aquinas. I think it was Francis Bacon who started the movement to separate the natural sciences from the philosophical sciences. But I think the separation has gone too far. I think it would benefit scientists if they had a better understanding of the philosophic roots of "natural" science.

Originally posted by Coletti
That's true. 🙂

But the idea that science is limited to the likes of biology and chemistry was not always the case. The first scientists were philosophers, Thales, Aristotle, Aquinas. I think it was Francis Bacon who started the movement to separate the natural sciences from the philosophical sciences. But I think the separation has gone too far. I t ...[text shortened]... t scientists if they had a better understanding of the philosophic roots of "natural" science.

Agreed, and not just for reasons of job security.