Is Darwinism scientific or philosophical?

[Gman]

It is often debated on this forum that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god or supernatural power, for such questions are outside the the bounds of science. Science, therefore, is not subject to ultimate questions such as how did life come into existence and the likes...

So the question here is, in the view of Darwinian evolutionary beliefs, is it purely scientific or is it philosophical? Is it neutral to the existence of a god? What is science and what were Darwin's beliefs on this subject? Can definitions of science truly be philosophically free?

Thoughts?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I seriously doubt that many people - atheists or believers - have read Darwin. He's one of those authors that get a lot of lip service but few readers. With reason! Darwin writes ploddingly, alternating between travel journal, personal stories, philosophizing, and science.

Is it neutral to the existence of a god?

I think so. Sort-of. Maybe. Yes?

What is science and what were Darwin's beliefs on this subject?

Do you mean What parts of Darwin's writings were science? beliefs on what? science?

Can definitions of science truly be philosophically free?

I guess some can. It depends on the science.

FL

[Gman]

I seriously doubt that many people - atheists or believers - have read Darwin. He's one of those authors that get a lot of lip service but few readers. With reason! Darwin writes ploddingly, alternating between travel journal, personal stories, philosophizing, and science.

I mean his scientific views... Survival of the fittest, common ancestor, etc..

Is it neutral to the existence of a god?

I think so. Sort-of. Maybe. Yes?

Is that your final answer? How?

Do you mean What parts of Darwin's writings were science? beliefs on what? science?

Like what is the definition of science and are Darwin's views completely compatible with that definition and not philosophic?

Can definitions of science truly be philosophically free?

I guess some can. It depends on the science.

Ok which ones?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I'll try answering again:

in the view of Darwinian evolutionary beliefs, is it purely scientific or is it philosophical? Is it neutral to the existence of a god?

The Theory of Evolution proposes a model for the process of change from the simple to the more complex in living things; or from one to various species. The theory doesn't specifically say that the process is Godless but the implication is that God isn't part of it. Some Christians see the Theory as «How God brought all things to be.»

What is science and what were Darwin's beliefs on this subject?

I know what science is! systematized knowledge. As for how Darwin would have answered your question, I haven't a clue! I don't really want to read through his works again to find out, either. That would be a big waste of time.

Can definitions of science truly be philosophically free?

Some can: chemistry...mathematics...pharmacology...wait! am I answering your question? What do you mean by definitions of science?

FL

[PaulB007]

Let me clarify, are you asking if Darwinism is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, or is it a philosophical system that requires a degree of faith to believe it is true?

[jlay]

It is pretty obvious in studying Darwin's conclusions and writings, that Darwin's findings were filtered through an atheistic worldview. Darwin didn't seek to discover something. He set out to find his subjective notions. That is the problem I have with a lot of the findings today. I can't tell you the published science articles I have read through were you can see this blatantly seeping through. That also tells me that those writing them do not see their bias. If evolutionists think their view as fact, then they have no problem entering the research with such bias. What we see as bias they see as fact. So they assume their starting point to be truth, and thus impose their belief system (philosophy) on the evidence. This belief is so strong and engrained that many would be offended at what I just stated.

[touchingcloth]

I can't tell you the published science articles I have read through were you can see this blatantly seeping through. That also tells me that those writing them do not see their bias.

Got any examples?

[jlay]

Sorry, I haven't kept a file. But you are right, I should.

Here is one. http://www.wildlifeofpakistan.com/blogs ... &tb=1&pb=1

[touchingcloth]

Ah, thought you meant journal articles as opposed to articles in general.

Still, what's the supposed bias that's blatantly seeping through in that particular article?

[jlay]

Ding ding ding, you just proved my point. Gman, anyone, want to have a stab at this one. I've got to take my daughter to bball practice.

[Gman]

Let me clarify, are you asking if Darwinism is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, or is it a philosophical system that requires a degree of faith to believe it is true?

What I'm saying here is it raw science or philosophical? But that is a good question.. Does it require faith?

[Gman]

Some can: chemistry...mathematics...pharmacology...wait! am I answering your question? What do you mean by definitions of science?

As it relates to Darwinian evolution like the idea of a common ancestor, natural selection, etc...

[Gman]

Got any examples?

Ding ding ding, you just proved my point. Gman, anyone, want to have a stab at this one. I've got to take my daughter to bball practice.

Sure... Last year I was wondering what was being taught at the local public colleges here so I went to the bookstore on campus, and grabbed a book called Biology: Concepts and Connections from the biology section.

In this book, I was amazed that a number of the questions (as titles) were in fact philosophical in nature..

As an example under the topic, “How Did Life Arise?” It clearly states “observations and experiments that have led scientists to hypothesize that chemical and physical processes on early earth have produced very simple cells through a sequence of 4 main stages:

1. The abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides

2. The joining of these small molecules into macromolecules including proteins and nucleic acids

3. The packaging of these molecules into "protobionts,” droplets with membranes that maintain an internal chemistry different from that of their surroundings.

4. The origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible. In the next two modules, we examine some of the evidence for each of these four stages. “ Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 294.

From the book it also appears that chance does have some creative power as well.. Under the title, "Natural Selection is the only mechanism that consistently leads to adaptive evolution" it states the following about chance..

“Genetic drift, gene flow, and even mutation can cause microevolution. But these are chance events, and only blind luck could result in their improving a population's fit to its environment. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, is a blend of chance and "sorting": chance in the random collection of genetic variation packaged in gametes and combined in offspring and sorting in that some alleles are favored over others. Because of this sorting effect, only natural selection consistently leads to adaptive evolution-evolution that results in a better fit between organisms and their environment.” Biology : Concepts and connections — Ch. 13.12, pg 269, 2008

This is clearly an evolutionary process from the books perspective. The whole chapter devotes itself to evolution and how life arose from nonliving matter… Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple.

“Similar experiments using various atmospheric conditions have also produced mixtures of organic compounds. Scientists now think that the composition of the atmosphere of early Earth was somewhat different from what Miller assumed in his historic first experiment. There is growing evidence that the early atmosphere was made up primarily of N2 and CO2, and so far, Miller-Urey-type experiments using such atmospheres have not produced organic molecules. Still, it is possible that small "pockets" of the early atmosphere-perhaps near volcanic openings-were similar to those used by Miller.
Alternatively, submerged volcanoes and deep-sea hydrothermal vents-gaps in the Earth's crust where hot water and minerals gush into deep oceans-may have provided the initial chemical resources for life. Such environments are among the most extreme in which life exists today, and some researchers favor the hypothesis that life may have begun in similar regions on early Earth.
Miller-Urey-type experiments demonstrate that the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules is possible. Support for this idea also comes from analyses of the chemical composition of meteorites. Fragments of a 4.5-billion-year-old meterorite collected in 1969 contain more than 80 amino acids. Remarkably, the proportions of these amino acids are similar to those produced in the Miller-Urey experiments.- ”Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 295.

Granted on page 9 it states, "Science can neither prove nor disprove a the existence of a God, for such questions are outside the bounds of science."

I also hear and read many comments that Darwinian evolution has the weight of the scientific evidence behind it and has the "best" plausible answer or hypothesis for the existence of life and species. When I hear this, I really don't know what other science they are basing this against since everything else appears to be labeled as theistic. In that respect, it would appear to be the "only" answer..

Is this philosophical or it is science? Does it interfere with the existence of a God? Here is another question.. Is the "survival of the fittest" a term that could be used by a creationist? And what about chance, would God use that?

[PaulB007]

In my opinion, if the so called missing link that scientists say connect us to hominids, neanderthals, ect is found, would be a true disaster. If human macro evolution can truly be proven, then as far as I can conclude our beliefs were all wrong. Theistic evolution is not a logical answer to me, as the bible states Gos created man in his image. Therefore, following that line of reasing God is a chimpanzee.

Luckily that isn't the case. If human macroevolution from chimp slowly progressing into man over time is truly proven with certainty, all is lost. And I think most people would not be religious anymore either, except a few wishful thinkers. Microbal evolution is pretty much concrete, regadless of that I think that has zero impact as to whether or not God exists, and anyone who uses micro evolution to try and disprove God uses a weak argument.

[Gabrielman]

Therefore, following that line of reasing God is a chimpanzee.

Not necessarily, it just means that God used a different method to create man in his image than what you think. He breathed into dust and it becomes a man, and how does it become a man? How did He form us in His image? To me Theistic Evolution is a choice, but I do not think that Darwinists will find such a thing, and even if they did, can they prove that it means we evolved from that to what we are now? No they cannot, for all we know it could just be a species that lived with us and was a lot like us, so I wouldn't be so worried.

Luckily that isn't the case. If human macroevolution from chimp slowly progressing into man over time is truly proven with certainty, all is lost. And I think most people would not be religious anymore either, except a few wishful thinkers. Microbal evolution is pretty much concrete, regadless of that I think that has zero impact as to whether or not God exists, and anyone who uses micro evolution to try and disprove God uses a weak argument.

I wouldn't say all is lost, I think that if it were proven that that in of itself would be miraculous becuase that would require them to prove that we were once that link and not that it just existed on it's own and then died out. And Micro Evolution is iffy in my opinion because when AIDS "evolves" to resist a medicine it is still AIDS, so.... just a few thoughts though, nothing else.