Darwin/Evolution

[Patrick Skerry]

I believe Charles Darwin was chosen the Man of the Milenium for the 20th century.

The Roman Catholic church has no problem with the theory of evolution, but it is against the notion of 'Darwinism' (See the Catholic Encylcopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm).

 

[heretic888]

Ok, ok! My turn! :ultracool

As far as "science" how it is applied to the subject matter will have an impact on how it is viewed. The philosophical application of 'science' in the study of people will look different from the study of biology (physical study) or Chemistry. I am referring to the 'method of discovery' that science provides. Is it pure science, or 'true science' by no means, but will it help people recognize and be able to see how the scientific method has become the ruling mental structure that affects almost all aspects of our lives? Yes.

Errr..... seems to me you might be mixing up "science" and "positivism" there (or, if you prefer, "scientism").

I find it interesting that you relegated the "philosophical application of 'science' in the study of people" as not being "pure science" --- considering there are a whole buncha "true sciences" that do just that, such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, and so on.

All of the above is "pure science", since all "pure science" is is the scientific method in whatever form. And, all that method is (to use the terms of Kuhn) is paradigm, datum, and confirmation. Plain and simple. Its actually a pretty broad concept, when you think about it. And, furthermore, is used in a pretty damn broad range of disciplines (y'know, like math and logic and psychology and chemistry and etcetera ad infinitum). Its nothing unique to the labcoats at your local college.

I agree, and have made the point that teaching "alternative brews" of creation and life in science that are based on religious or mystical origins is not appropriate. But, in Science classes, as NYS has chosen to resolve the issue to this point, Evolutionary theory has to be taught as only one of many perspectives on the issue. There are other areas/groups/school districts that are battling for equal time/representation and I don't agree with that either. My son's science teacher said that now the language is "Changes across time" or something to that affect.

Oh, I agree that there are other valid perspectives --- but none of them, as far as I'm aware of, is "scientific". And, as such, shouldn't be taught in a science class. But, hey, that's just me.

Personally, what was done in NYS sounds as if they are simply "submitting" to different special interests groups. Poo poo on them, I say.

I agree with the respecting other values idea, even if I don't agree with them. Now, when the rubber meets the road, the scientific theory (and I do know the difference between the 'everyday use' and the 'scientific use') of evolution AND the methodology that people use to support it has a more rational and convincing explanation.... but that could also be because we are living in the times when science rules the mind, I am not closing all doors on the validity of the mystics cuz there are things that we can explain logically that may have some 'divine spark' involved. Who knows.

Nothing about 'mystics' or 'mysticism' here, methinks.

No how, no way, can 'science' be excluded from the various mystical traditions --- they are very much 'spiritual sciences'. Now, 'science' isn't clearly omnipotent here, as it can not make any value judgments whatosever (that's not its purpose). But, if any claim can be tested, then it can be scientifically validated.

Truth is that most of the people going with the 'there might be a God' arguments, particularly the ones using logic and reason to do so, are not mystics. They are religious believers that want to feel as if their mythic beliefs are still 'validated' by the existing worldview. But, sorry, no science there.

Microevolution is the aspect of evolution that we can examine in terms of small behavoral and/or genetic changes, incrementally, in one species or within a family. Darwin's finches, selective pressures on fruit flies in the lab, etc.

Macroevolution is explaining, essentially, more of the "big picture". How does a new species suddenly emerge in the fossil record? Whence the Cambrian explosion?

These two things are clearly not unrelated, but the mechanics of microevolution are worked out in much greater detail - in part because we can study it experimentally in very quick-generation species. Macroevolution is what "creationism" attacks, because it is harder for us to demonstrate exactly what happened to bring about large-scale changes in species/body form/diversity.

I find that a bizarre tactic, however - attack part of the theory, implicitly acknowledging that another part (that we can study more readily) may be correct, then try to throw out the entire thing.

But macroevolution is what evolutionary biologists would really like to be able to get a hold of, so to speak.

If you understand the ideas of natural selection, genetic drift, deleterious mutations, speciation by geographical isolation, and so on, it's not hard to imagine how species may have rapidly emerged. Also, how behavioral changes can lead genetic evolution (and please, no-one crying "Lamarck!" on me, this is not Lamarckian inheritance I'm talking about) and prime a species to take advantage of structural changes.

As myself a religious person, I try to respect other's religious beliefs. Packaging them as science and trying to re-write scientific methodology is as insulting to me as it would be for me to walk into someone else's belief system and re-write it as a science, or explain away their beliefs.

Thanks for the clarification, miss mouse. I agree entirely. :asian:

Laterz all.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Why Mr. Heretic, you are welcome!

 

[kenpo tiger]

*tiger cheers for the mouse!*