Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
Actually, the "theory of evolution" per se does not address origins - only speciation. Thus it does not speak to the question of abiogenesis v biogenesis. The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not a theory of origins either, BTW.
However, the general term "evolution" applies to all forms of gradual change over time and thus includes stellar evolution, abiogenesis, social changes, etc.
For this reason - on the crevo threads for the last couple of years - we've been careful to make the distinction between the theory of evolution and the concept of evolution - and try to raise abiogenesis v. biogenesis as a separate topic.
Evolution and empiricism both have limits. Data and theories alone do not make science. For most people a heliocentric solar system is known only through faith and inference, and not through empirical proofs. In fact, it cannot be empirically proven that the earth revolves around the sun simply because all descriptions of motion are subject the the point from which motion is observed.
That people act in their own self interest, creating a capitalistic trade system does not equate to "evolution". People have the God given gift of intelligence (except democrats). Small communities bartered. When populations grew in many places, bartering became more difficult, so money was invented. The advances in capitalism come from individuals making informed decisions about how best to bring comfort and joy to their lives. Others see the examples of the smart guys and emulate it. Over time, it became a complex world trading and finance system. So capitalism is designed. Designed by trial and error of individuals over the centuries. Without intelligence behind it, intelligence to see what works and what does not, people would still live in caves and only trade with their next cave neighbor.
It might be that they imagine themselves to be legal guardians over the name and practice of science so that, when a point of view contrary to their own is mentioned or spoken, their imagined legal authority is threatened.
A list, or perhaps some examples, of this evidence would be helpful.
Do you believe that all (and I mean ALL!) animals were created by God with absolutely no changes to their physiology between the time of their creation and now?
Did you parents plan your birth or were you an 'accident'?
What are the atheist evilutionists afraid of? Why won't they allow equal time for Creation in science class? (Free Republic)
What is George Bush afraid of? Why won't he allow equal time for Helen Thomas in press conferences? (Democratic Underground)
It's not a matter of fear - some viewponts are simply beneath consideration
Explain how the pattern of ERV distribution points to ID
Yeah. Chemistry is just faith.
There is no law of chemistry which provides that random elements will come together to form living cells, your declaration of faith notwithstanding.
Ahem.
There is no known law...
150 years ago, there was no known law that would allow man to build and successfully operate a heavier-than-air vehicle.
Ditto for radio, television, etc.
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
Science is more than facts and theories. From specific to general it consists of data, theories, and shaping principles. Baconian inductivism, hypothetico-deductivism, and Popperian falsification each have their weaknesses. Furthermore there is no clear-cut method to determine the degree to which evidence may or may not confirm a scientific theory. Is it an empirical fact that the law of parsimony always applies? If not, then when do we know for certain we are choosing the correct theory?
The debate over evolutionism vs. creationism is the result of investing inferences on a non-empirical basis. Because science is, as far as we know, only undertaken by the human species, there is a subjective propensity to fill in the blanks when reasoning from the specific to the general when there may be little or no objective continuity.
How is this different than the Christian putting his faith in an unseen God? And why should your faith be taught in schools paid for with my taxes?
Someone forgot to tell Pope John Paul.
[N]ew knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [... de nouvelles connaissances conduisent a reconnaitre dans la theorie de l'evolution plus qu'une hypothese.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.Pope John Paul II, 1996
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.