Is Darwinism scientific or philosophical?

[Yrreg]

The way I see it, science as today practiced by scientists has to do with seeking evidence for the existence of things people take to be existing.

The big question then is what is evidence?


With philosophy philosophers are into reasoning from already accepted existing things to come to the ascertainment of things whose existence are problematic, i.e., disputable.



Now, what is Darwin into? More into philosophy I would hazard.




Yrreg

[The11thDr.]

What exactly is your problem with the idea that things change and develop over time? You believe in Reform and the ability to repent dont you? So whats wrong with reform of species? I guess its the difficulties involved in watching it in action, i can understand your skepticism if that is the case. Mankind did Evolve, there aint nothing you can do that will change reality. I cant even change what is real, but I can learn what is true and right.

I say with conviction: What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!(probably worth pointing out that hamlet was being ironic but whatever )

[Gman]

The way I see it, science as today practiced by scientists has to do with seeking evidence for the existence of things people take to be existing.

The big question then is what is evidence?


With philosophy philosophers are into reasoning from already accepted existing things to come to the ascertainment of things whose existence are problematic, i.e., disputable.

Now, what is Darwin into? More into philosophy I would hazard.

Religion is relevant to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. Christianity did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born. Science can verify and falsify the claim of religion. When religions make claims about the natural world, they intersect the domain of science and are in affect making predictions in which scientific investigations can either verify or falsify.

Example, science can certainly be used to falsify religion. Consider ancient Greek and Indian religions that the heavens or the world rested upon the shoulders of atlas, or on the back of a turtle were easily falsified.

Science can also verify religious claims, such as God creating the universe out of nothing a finite time ago. The Bible also teaches that the universe had a beginning Genesis 1:1. This teaching was reputed by Greeks philosophy and also by modern atheism. Then in 1929 the discovery of the expansion of the universe this doctrine was dramatically verified by the big bang theory (as proposed to by a Christian). An entire universe created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) just like what the Bible foretold. Science can thus verify this religious prediction.

[Gman]

And if you don't think the Bible is making any scientific claims.. You might want to read this claim by the Bible..

The scientific proof for Genesis

[The11thDr.]

The intent of the writers wasn't to make scientific claims, but whatever "science" in there has to be honest to the people who wrote it or it cant be truthful. Its a storybook, about god&man, i think that is more the intent. Your thread, does seem to show that genesis seems to be honest, but i thought that the bible was open to interpretation? Couldn't the intent of the writer be to say any other thing? (within reason)

[Gman]

The intent of the writers wasn't to make scientific claims, but whatever "science" in there has to be honest to the people who wrote it or it cant be truthful. Its a storybook, about god&man, i think that is more the intent. Your thread, does seem to show that genesis seems to be honest, but i thought that the bible was open to interpretation? Couldn't the intent of the writer be to say any other thing? (within reason)

That maybe true that the Bible is not a science book. It's not like God is showing us exactly "how" he created everything, but there is a certain order to the creation that can correspond to certain scientific abstracts. There is always going to be a point where philosophy or religion and science are going to intersect especially if it is going to make claims about our known world. Another example would be archaeology... The Bible mentions cities, lands, people, wars, that can be verified through scientific inquiries.

Interpretation? Not really... It depends on many things such as an understanding of the language it was written in, idioms, figures of speech and such. Narrative or literal, but most people take the Genesis account to be a "real" event.

[The11thDr.]

Well as long as it doesn't contradict science, then sure. I'm pretty sure that what you call miricles can be possible if such things only involve "tweaking" perameters, like feeding thousands by making a crowd generous or something. Anything more than tweaking is too much.

[Gman]

Well as long as it doesn't contradict science, then sure. I'm pretty sure that what you call miricles can be possible if such things only involve "tweaking" perameters, like feeding thousands by making a crowd generous or something. Anything more than tweaking is too much.

Well whatever belief you take on, whether you believe in God or naturalism, you are always going to have to rely on a certain amount of faith, miracles, or probabilities. They all tweak parameters in that respect..

[The11thDr.]

well of course there has to be some cheating, thats what the whole idea of a multiverse is, its a massive cheat. You just have to believe limits dont exist, or that they can be broken perhaps.

[Yrreg]

well of course there has to be some cheating, thats what the whole idea of a multiverse is, its a massive cheat. You just have to believe limits dont exist, or that they can be broken perhaps.

Dr, you are better informed about multiverse, if I may presume.

Tell me what is the big idea of postulating a multiverse of which I seem to understand the one in which we are residing is a member of but the others (of this multiverse) we don't have any evidence of.

Is this multiverse concept arrived at by mathematical processes starting from some cosmic subtle but genuinely existing thingie in our universe, the one having a beginning with the socalled Big Bang?

Anyway, I think the multiverse can always have existed as a collectivity although each universe inside like the one we are in can and does have a beginning.

That is the advantage for atheist scientists, the speculation without any evidence though.



Yrreg

[The11thDr.]

Thats why i said its a cheat and a massive one. Dont presume anything, i used to think of that idea as the ultimate in justice, unlimited possibilities happening. But really it probably isn't happening at all, why think about it if it doesn't affect your own situation.

[Enginseer]

Due to the hundreds if not thousands examples of evidence to support evolution. It has to be seen as a theory that has a high probability of being fact.

[Gman]

Due to the hundreds if not thousands examples of evidence to support evolution. It has to be seen as a theory that has a high probability of being fact.

Since when? Also we are talking about macro-evolution here.. Where is the factual evidence to support macro-evolution?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Where is the factual evidence to support macro-evolution?

No factual evidence is necessary. If you repeat something often enough, it becomes fact. Hence:

Due to the hundreds if not thousands examples of evidence to support evolution. It has to be seen as a theory that has a high probability of being fact.

Think Hermann Goering and you'll understand.

FL

[Enginseer]

If micro-evolution is accepted [is that within a few generations?] if something micro-evolves for long enough when would it be considered macro?