Drivel !!!
Show us the philosophical component of any branch of Mathematics, or Physics, or Chemistry? I engage in no dichotomy whatsoever. Philosophy negates the necessary objectivity, thus rendering academic dogma rather than scientific observation. Belief in evolution is an insurmountable barrier to objective science.
In 1939 the late, great Robert Heinlein, Naval officer, futurist, and author wrote:
"There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority."It is this point of view - academic minds clinging like oysters to disproved theories - that has blocked every advance of knowledge in history."
You realize that quoting an evolutionist like Heinlein while you are trying to defend the kind of scholastic drivel he loathed is not the smartest move you could have made, right? :)
>>>Show us the philosophical component of any branch of Mathematics, or Physics, or Chemistry?
String Theory.
String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics. For this reason, string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of pointlike particles in a physical theory. Study of string theories has revealed that they require not just strings but other objects, variously including points, membranes, and higher-dimensional objects.
It is not yet known whether string theory is able to describe a universe with the precise collection of forces and matter that we observe, nor how much freedom to choose those details the theory will allow. No string theory has yet made falsifiable predictions that would allow it to be experimentally tested.
"There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority."It is this point of view - academic minds clinging like oysters to disproved theories - that has blocked every advance of knowledge in history."
In a more recent quote Heinlein wrote:
"Belief gets in the way of learning."
Robert Heinlein (Time Enough for Love, 1973)What do you think the odds are that Heinlein was referring, in great part, to religious belief in this passage? That's the way I read it.
Worth saying again. because it reinforces that politicians should not be able to mandate ID just because they like it.
But if you would like the 1980 amplification of Heinlein's view, in Expanded Universe where he lists symtoms of the general decline in society, one such symptom of decline is "i) The return of creationism—"
If almost everyone believed in Yahweh and Genesis, and less than one in a million U.S. citizens believe in Brahma the Creator, it would not change the constitutional aspect. Neither belongs in a science textbook in a tax-supported school. But if Yahweh is there, Brahma should be. - Robert Heinlein
All science rests on certain assumptions that are held to on philosophical, rather than observational grounds. For example, science must assume that the behavior of the universe is the same everywhere and at all times. That is, for example, if two massive bodies attract each other on earth in the year 2005, then these same two bodies would attract each other with the same force on a star 20 million light years away in the year 20000, on the planet Jupiter in 48 B.C. or at any other time and place you'd care to come up with. Obviously, we cannot test this assumption. We cannot make an identical observation at an infinite number of places at an infinite number of times. We accept this assumption because it allows science to proceed. For example we assume that the law of gravity is the same everywhere in the universe at all times because such an assumption allows us to, among other things, determine the masses of the earth, the sun, the moon, and other bodies in the solar system, indirectly determine the masses of distant stars, and indirectly observe the presence of planets orbiting other stars. Without such an assumption, much of the work done in science is not possible.
Another such assumption is that natural events are explainable in terms of natural causes. Again, without this assumption, science is not possible. However, if all of the observed events we can see are caused by some indetectable supernatural being, we would not be able to determine this empirically. Science cannot rule this out, but must assume that it is not the case in order to proceed. There are other basic assumptions that must be made in order for science to proceed. Such is the underlying philosophical basis of science.