Replies

The problem that I have with the neo-Darwinist position is it reduces evolution to a premise that cannot be demonstrated: i.e., a common ancestor that no one has ever seen whose origin is never explained. It assumes the world of nature is thoroughgoingly materialistic and naturalistic, that everything that exists and the universe itself ultimately reduces to the material and nothing more. In short, for the typical Darwinist today, the scientific method of observation, falsification, and replicable experiments is the “touchstone of truth” for evaluating the reality of everything that exists; that to which the method cannot be applied — and there are domains of reality that are simply not susceptible to direct observation, that cannot be “objectified” into directly testable data — is assumed to be an illusion, false.

I posted this on another thread recently in response to a similar statement:

You are right, science is limited to that which can be observed.
On the other hand, we have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, public opinion, Ouija boards, tarot cards, witch doctors, the unguessable verdict of history, and a host of other un-natural phenomena.
Thanks, I'll stick with science. It doesn't seem that inferior a method for judging reality when one considers the alternatives.

The Glory of God is to conceal a thing -- as if the Divine Majesty took delight to hide his works. -- Sir Francis Bacon

You wrote, "we have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, public opinion, Ouija boards, tarot cards, witch doctors, the unguessable verdict of history, and a host of other un-natural phenomena."

Do you think the man who wrote the lines in italics above was given over to magic, superstition, wishful thinking, etc.?

If you think so, then you destroy the authority of the scientific method itself.

Too many of you "Evo" guys are just "Johnny one-notes." FWIW.

Thanks for writing, coyoteman. Good to see you!

There's more reality and to reality that can be observed and measured by science. By limiting yourself to only one segment of the world around you, you're getting a distorted picture of reality. The conclusions drawn from such a distortion may fit well enough within that framework, but it doesn't mean that they're right or accurate or ture.

A lot of things that would be considered *magic* by less developed cultures are simply what we know as technology, things like flashlights, televisions, telephone,... So if those cultures had the mindset of what is called science today, that of ignoring *magic* and *superstition* then they would not investigate such things only to find out that there was no magic to them in the first place.

Scientists can't claim to even begin to know everything about this world, and things that they have labeled as *superstition* and *magic* could very well be a part of the natural world, but nobody is going to find out because sciencists have so restricted themselves that they won't even consider investigationg it. It's like putting blinders on a horse; they'll only see what's in front of them so that they're not scared when they're surprised by the rest of the world around them.

On the other hand, we have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, public opinion, Ouija boards, tarot cards, witch doctors, the unguessable verdict of history, and a host of other un-natural phenomena.

Yup...

It's called: Muddying the waters.