I’m going to remove the Philosophy and Imagination from the Science of Evolution
ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Slogan/motto:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher
Reputation:
I’m going to remove the Philosophy and Imagination from the Science of Evolution -
April 25th, 2011, 08:50 AM
You will see that what we have left is supported by both evolution and creation. Of course I’m sure I left some of the data out, but if included it is data that has to be interpreted by a biased observer. Anything beyond the actual description of the data goes beyond science and into philosophy and imagination.
1) Change over time in one or more inherited traits is found in populations of organisms.
2) Organisms do look homologous.
3) DNA is somewhat similar in organisms.
4) There are mostly negative and some beneficial mutations in organism.
5) Natural Selection selects the traits that benefit an organism according to its environment.
God Bless
Monkey
Last edited by I aint no monkey; April 25th, 2011 at 10:17 AM.
Slogan/motto:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher
Reputation:
April 25th, 2011, 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inzl Kett
By removing the philosophic and imaginary components, you have pretty much gutted the Theory of Evolution.
Not necessarily. The ToE does include real science, which is what I outlined in the OP. It guts the philosphy and imaginative parts which can be outlined also. Here are a couple assumptions that qualify as philosophy and imagination.
"Mankind and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor."
"All life forms evolved from a common ancestor".
What is needed is imagination and philosophy. What is NOT needed is dogmatic science.
Empirical data is important, but it cannot alone explain the process of evolution. There is a lot going on that external and mechanical causes or chance mutations cannot explain. Life grows from within outward and consists of wholes. Science analyzes the world bit by bit and tries to piece it together. It is a very partial and incomplete view of life.
How do new traits come into organisms? Change happens much faster than natural selection can explain. It takes too long just for life to wait for the right mutation to come along before adapting to changing conditions, especially since most mutations are not helpful to survival. There are elements in life that only philosophy and imagination can explain. There is an inherent drive and life force within life; call it prana, manna, grace, soul or spirit. A science that can only observe objects, cannot observe the spirit or life. But they are there; we can see spirit everywhere, in ourselves, other living beings, and in all beings.
If science itself is going to explain evolution, then it needs somehow to incorporate "philosophy and imagination" into its methods. Without philosophy, science has no foundation at all. Every kind of knowledge is first based on its philosophy.
What is also NOT needed to explain evolution is dogmatic religion, i.e. creationism or intelligent design. The spirit is here, within everything; not imposed on it by a separate Creator.
Slogan/motto:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher
Reputation:
April 25th, 2011, 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eameece
What is needed is imagination and philosophy. What is NOT needed is dogmatic science.
Empirical data is important, but it cannot alone explain the process of evolution. There is a lot going on that external and mechanical causes or chance mutations cannot explain. Life grows from within outward and consists of wholes. Science analyzes the world bit by bit and tries to piece it together. It is a very partial and incomplete view of life.
How do new traits come into organisms? Change happens much faster than natural selection can explain. It takes too long just for life to wait for the right mutation to come along before adapting to changing conditions, especially since most mutations are not helpful to survival. There are elements in life that only philosophy and imagination can explain. There is an inherent drive and life force within life; call it prana, manna, grace, soul or spirit. A science that can only observe objects, cannot observe the spirit or life. But they are there; we can see spirit everywhere, in ourselves, other living beings, and in all beings.
If science itself is going to explain evolution, then it needs somehow to incorporate "philosophy and imagination" into its methods. Without philosophy, science has no foundation at all. Every kind of knowledge is first based on its philosophy.
What is also NOT needed to explain evolution is dogmatic religion, i.e. creationism or intelligent design. The spirit is here, within everything; not imposed on it by a separate Creator.
Question authority, folks.
It sounds like you are promoting philosophy and imagination to be part of science. Dare I say only one philosophy?
Slogan/motto:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher
Reputation:
April 25th, 2011, 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald
Your post does nothing to support the notion of a transcendant entity that interacts with reality in verifiable ways.
.
It wasn't supposed to. This is a post about removing the imagination and philosophy from the real science of evolution. Once that is done then the philosophers can take over from there and hopefully equal time can be given to the evolution promoting vs creation promoting philosophies.
Location: A spacious corner office overlooking the River Phlegethon
Rep Power: 50251
Atheist
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"Do what thou wilt" shall be the hole in the floor.
Reputation:
April 25th, 2011, 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by I aint no monkey
It wasn't supposed to. This is a post about removing the imagination and philosophy from the real science of evolution. Once that is done then the philosophers can take over from there...
You know what "philosopher" means, don't you?
It's an Ancient Greek term meaning "one who lacks the chops to get a real job".
philosophers
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization."
Slogan/motto:
Hands that help are holier than lips that pray.
Reputation:
April 25th, 2011, 10:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
Er, science isn't about philosophy or imagination anyway, so you're hardly taking anything "away" here.....
:squint:
Look, you believe in a young earth, fine. Many others don't and it really isn't that big of a deal overall is it?
And here I was racking my brain trying to figure out the philosophy of science.
I believe that the Universe is one being, all its parts are different expressions of the same energy,
and they are all in communication with each other, therefore parts of one organic whole.
This whole is in all its parts so beautiful, and is felt by me to be so intensely in earnest, that I am compelled to love it and to think of it as divine
- Robinson Jeffers
Location: A spacious corner office overlooking the River Phlegethon
Rep Power: 50251
Atheist
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"Do what thou wilt" shall be the hole in the floor.
Reputation:
April 25th, 2011, 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
Look, you believe in a young earth, fine. Many others don't and it really isn't that big of a deal overall is it?
[monkey]
But people who don't believe in a young earth are doomed to go to hell and be roasted on a spit for all eternity while demons poke their pitchforks into their unmentionable places!
It just breaks my widdle heart that so many are dooming themselves like this!
I do nothing but because of it!
[/monkey]
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization."
Location: Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
Rep Power: 161379
Other
More left than right
Slogan/motto:
So it goes...
Reputation:
April 26th, 2011, 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald
[monkey]
But people who don't believe in a young earth are doomed to go to hell and be roasted on a spit for all eternity while demons poke their pitchforks into their unmentionable places!
It just breaks my widdle heart that so many are dooming themselves like this!
I do nothing but because of it!
[/monkey]
[Albatross]
'Squawk!' (Which roughly translates as a slightly unfair assessment as only the ultra zealous hardcore YEC's make it a salvific issue)
Location: Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
Rep Power: 161379
Other
More left than right
Slogan/motto:
So it goes...
Reputation:
April 26th, 2011, 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samstarrett
I've yet to meet or hear of the YEC who makes it a salvific issue.
To be fair it's rather rare, and it's usually implied that if one doesn't believe the Genesis account to be literal then one disbelieves God by association and salvation is in doubt because of it. It's only a tiny minority of such who are so vociferous on the matter however...
More like tolerate perversity.
philosophers
I once had a similar experience trying to equate an abacus with a laundry mat but common sense prevailed in the end! (sorta) 
because of it!
Hybrid Mode
