Replies

It is also not metaphysics, philosophy or theology and every attempt to appropriate the theory for such purposes reflects poorly on all the related disciplines of science.

Are you admitting that the theory of evolution is "not metaphysics, philosophy or theology?"

I agree.

But then you say, "every attempt to appropriate the theory for such purposes reflects poorly on all the related disciplines of science."

I disagree.

Rather, it reflects poorly on metaphysics, philosophy and theology, not on science.

Real science parted from "metaphysics, philosophy and theology" a couple of centuries ago, although the latter are still crying, "Listen to us! We were here first!"

“Real science parted from “metaphysics, philosophy and theology” a couple of centuries ago, although the latter are still crying, “Listen to us! We were here first!””

Sorry, but that’s just not true, and it reflects on your fundamental lack of understanding of science, philosophy, and knowledge itself.

First of all, science was originally called “natural philosophy.” Although we have a shorter name for it now, we could just as well still call it by that name.

Secondly, philosophy itself is what defines “science.” To put it another way, what you and I call “science” is defined, either implicitly or explicitly, by a “philosophy of science.” Your “philosophy of science” is apparently somewhat different than mine, but it is a philosophy nonetheless.

The main difference between you and me on this matter is that I recognize that I have my own “philosophy of science,” whereas you don’t even recognize that science is defined by philosophy. You think that science somehow stands above philosophy, which is profoundly wrong. And that is why so much of what you write on these threads in also profoundly wrong.

The bottom line is that many statements made by theologians, philosophers and metaphysicians cannot be subjected to the scientific method, e.g. falsified by empirical tests and observations made by microscope or telescope.

Conversely, many statements made by science cannot be received as objective truth, i.e. methodological naturalism is the reduced boundary of the scientific method.

The epistemic divide must be respected from both sides, or if it isn't then "methodological naturalism" must be trashcanned.

Scientists like Dawkins, Singer, Pinker, Lewontin and Monod do not respect the epistemic divide when they posit the theory of evolution as objective truth which by definition cannot be subjected to the scientific method (observer problem.) When they do this, these scientists reflect poorly on other scientists.

Real science parted from "metaphysics, philosophy and theology" a couple of centuries ago, although the latter are still crying, "Listen to us! We were here first!"

Seems to me the humanities got left in the dust first.

Cheers!