Canuckster1127 wrote:I think the term "evolution" is very broad and used differently by many people in many different context; So much so that it's become something of a catch all phrase that has to be unpacked and terms defined carefully,
Good point! I use the term Evolution - capital E - as in natural selection/survival of the fittest. It is this Evolution* that has become the proto-religion/pseudo-science of today. Some call this «macro-evolution.»
FL
*described in Natural Selection; or the survival of the fittest, Chapter 4, and On the geological succession of organic beings, Chapter 11, of Darwin's The Origin of Species.
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom
+ + +
If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.
August wrote:These metaphysical diversions, as you call them, are the basic truths that underwrite what we believe. So if you cannot account for it, then why should we believe you?
OK, how do I know anything? I am persuaded by evidence which is presented to me, combined with personal experience.
In the case of evolution, then either there's a massive global scientific conspiracy, or it's most probably true. The same goes for gravity.
How do you come to know the meaning of the evidence? How do you know when your personal experience is valid or not? How do you "experience" something?
An important concept here is the application of methodological naturalism (not philosophical naturalism) that underpins science. The assumption is basically that a) the universe behaves somewhat predictably and b) that therefore we can know something about it. Science proceeds from there and, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, it delivers the goods.
touchingcloth wrote:An important concept here is the application of methodological naturalism (not philosophical naturalism) that underpins science. The assumption is basically that a) the universe behaves somewhat predictably and b) that therefore we can know something about it. Science proceeds from there and, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, it delivers the goods.
And all the while ignoring the phenomenon of the underlying order in the universe.
touchingcloth wrote:An important concept here is the application of methodological naturalism (not philosophical naturalism) that underpins science. The assumption is basically that a) the universe behaves somewhat predictably and b) that therefore we can know something about it. Science proceeds from there and, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, it delivers the goods.
And all the while ignoring the phenomenon of the underlying order in the universe.
Ignoring it? As I said above, that idea pretty much underpins all of science and is central to the concept of evidence.
