Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
I was reading an article from a blog where he provided a quote from Richard Lewontin,
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything.
Since many scientists, mainstream science education, and what is acceptable in most journals is pro evolution, I think that it might be more accurate to say that all observations are interpreted and conclusions made based upon the assumption that evolution is actually true.
Jbuza wrote:Since many scientists, mainstream science education, and what is acceptable in most journals is pro evolution, I think that it might be more accurate to say that all observations are interpreted and conclusions made based upon the assumption that evolution is actually true.
There's two levels to the discussion of evolution, Pure Science and then philisophical derivatives. Much of the argument derives from very loosely applied terms which confuse the two and cause people to talk past each other.
Ironically, many forms of Young Earth Creationism actually rely upon evolutionary manifestations at a pace far faster than "evolutionists" themselves propose.
Evolution is pretty clearly demonstrated in terms of modern science on what is sometimes described as microevolution ( I personally don't like that term as I think it creates an artificial distinction.)
Here's an article on our main page that deals with some of the science
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
