Spirited: First of all, evolutionism is not empirical science, as even Karl Popper was honest enough to admit: “Imagine There’s No God-—only evolution” http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2787047/posts
And who is Karl Popper? Is he some great biologist, who discovered some seminal concepts of biology that help to shape the study of biological science as we practice it today?
No, according to Wikipedia, he was a philosopher trained in psychology, who worked at an economics school. Why should some non-scientist's philosophical musings hold more weight than the observations of actual scientists?
Evolutionism, whether a spiritual concept such as Teilhard’s or a material concept such as Darwins’ is a metaphysical program purpotedly answering the ultimate question of origins. However, it ultimately implodes into nihilism.
Next, the taproot of Darwin’s concept stretches back to the most ancient evolutionary conception so far translated, that is the Enuma Elish.
Man is fully capable of deceiving himself and deceiving others. And when men do not want the true, living God to exist they inevitably turn to evolutionary conceptions and then mock, scoff, and belittle those who refuse to follow them into their folly.
This, in a nutshell, is why I jump into the creationist threads. I honestly don't care how anti-science you are, as long as your brand of anti-science doesn't kill people. But it is *extremely* annoying that literal creationists have to invent religions that they then claim scientists all adhere to. You have no proof whatsoever that scientists follow whatever your imaginary religion is, whether you call it "evolutionism" or something else, yet you have no compunctions whatsoever about categorizing us as devotees of that religion.
I believe that that practice is an example of bearing false witness. That's breaking one of the ten commandments, isn't it?
If you have concrete evidence that science is, in fact, just another religion, and that performing experiments is no different than worshipping in a church, present that evidence. Don't go around quoting obscure philosophers as "proof" of your claim that scientists are practicing some oddball religion, because it is not. Proof, in this case, would be a survey of a random sample of scientists large enough to be sure the sample is statistically significant.
As long as you're providing proof that we follow your invented religion, how about also providing proof that you know anything about our motives for becoming scientists? Nothing you said indicates that you have any clue about that, either, although that didn't stop you from saying nonsense about it.
I don't care what your motives are, but lying or repeating lies about people you know nothing about is a sin.
“And who is Karl Popper? Is he some great biologist, who discovered some seminal concepts of biology that help to shape the study of biological science as we practice it today”
Spirited: Considering that what takes place in the unseen dimension, that is the mind, always precedes the spoken and written word and every action-—including yours-—then Karl Popper is important both as a philosopher and as an honest man.
Honesty is in very short supply in certain departments of the so-called ‘scientific’ community, evolutionary biologists in particular.
Like ancient pagans who superstitously studied sheep entrails for signs today’s biologists superstitiously study slime-mold colonies for knowledge about themselves. And just like Greece’s ancient nature philosophers-—the scientists of their time-— who taught that in other lives they had been females, trees, fish and other such nonsense their modern counterparts proclaim themselves to have been worms, fish, and apes in their former lives.
Evolutionists—including you-— confuse their religious cosmogony with real science. Though Karl Popper preferred the evolutionary cosmogony to the special creation cosmogony he was at least honest enough to admit that evolutionism is a cosmogony rather than empirical science.
No, according to Wikipedia, he was a philosopher trained in psychology, who worked at an economics school. Why should some non-scientist's philosophical musings hold more weight than the observations of actual scientists?
Well, maybe it's part time to be handing out
If they want to divorce themselves from philosophy, then perhaps they need to give up those degrees they're so proud of and stop owning the label of doctor of philosophy.