"Darwinism" is an unfortunate side effect of Darwin's theory of evolution. His intent was a scientific explanation of the origin of life, not a new foundation for atheism.

Evolution is not a philosophical stance, but a scientific theory. It explains much of the processes involved in the genetic modification of life, and as time progresses, will morph and fit emerging data, like any scientific principle.

Your sources are horribly outdated, by the way. 37 year-old essays have a hard time covering genetics in general; in 1969 they knew very little about DNA, and lacked the technology to properly study molecular biology.

Scientific theory is not philosophical theory. They are two distinct realms, never meant to cross the threshold.
jbruno | Homepage | 05.12.06 - 10:56 pm | #

Evolution is not a philosophical stance, but a scientific theory.

Without the support of the assumption of philosophic naturalism much of evolutionary hypothesizing breaks down into mythological narratives of Naturalism, while the rationalization for such hypothesizing continues to be philosophic naturalism itself in a circular way.

People use the term "evolution" when referring to anything from all that is and any change* that takes place in the Cosmos to the fact that when you have a group of moths with dark wings and light wings and you kill the ones with light wings then there are more moths with dark wings.

It explains much of the processes involved in the genetic modification of life...

Does it? Just because you can imagine an explanation to suit a certain type of philosophy does not mean that it is actually the way things are or that your imagination is an explanation.

...and as time progresses, will morph and fit emerging data, like any scientific principle.

Not necessarily. It's people that engage in science and sometimes people's ideas do not just morph and fit the emerging data. If they did, then Darwinism would have been dead at its conception.

Your sources are horribly outdated, by the way. 37 year-old essays have a hard time covering genetics in general; in 1969 they knew very little about DNA, and lacked the technology to properly study molecular biology.

Go on? Oh, I see, this all goes together because you seem to be suffering from the illusion that the views of scientists always just emerge from the data. It is actually especially fitting when dealing with Darwinism (which is still the major hypothesis at issue when someone waves their hand vaguely toward the blurred and changing term "evolution" without actually saying anything specifically) to use old sources. First, they were usually never answered in the first place because those with the urge to merge always just blur terms to the extent that they do not have to answer on any set terms, not even their own. Then sometimes they move on to claim their own imaginations as evidence and feel the fact that they can imagine things settles whatever issue is brought up. Second, it is especially fitting when it comes to Darwinism because Darwinism creaks and groans with its age. They're still back on the gill slit canard and other arguments that besides revealing a sort of neurosis typical to them, are also over a century old.

Scientific theory is not philosophical theory. They are two distinct realms, never meant to cross the threshold.

The old demarcation argument, it's usually pulled out of thin air and pretended to mean something as if one should assume that some principled distinctions are being invoked. What does it mean to you, that scientists cannot be philosophical or that philosophers have not been and cannot be scientific?

There is no science except that which is based on philosophy. Cross the threshold? It's already the foundation under the whole house, so one may as well admit it.

*The very notion of change is ultimately based on an assumption of the infinite that defines it as such. The whole point of most of science and philosophy is to bring the so-called "two distinct realms" together so that our metaphysical thought and metaphors match what actually is in the physical and literal. Never meant to cross? It is probably only a useful heuristic to pretend that they can be separated in the first place.
mynym | Homepage | 05.12.06 - 11:55 pm | #