Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
Edited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Ping
"Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation."
All created by the mind of man. So naturalistic and materialistic.
|
All created by the mind of man.
I'll grant you that the study of evolution is created by the mind of man (at least on this planet). But the fact of evolution, as Watson describes it, is most definitely not created by the mind of man (unless you wish to defend some form of subjective idealism or even solipsism).
That's fine but sometimes laws change.
Any chemist can go in the lab and demonstrate Avogadro's law. Has any evolutionist ever demonstrated macro-evolution under controlled circumstances? Of course not.
Well-established laws in science rarely change; rather, they are superseded by laws which take account of a wider (or more extreme) range of phenomena. Contrast the range of applicability of Newton's inverse square law of gravity with Einstein's general relativistic theory of gravity. You can send a rocket around the moon and back using Newton's law and not be off by much; but if you want to understand what happens around a neutron star or a black hole, say, Einstein's theory is essential.
Reality.
"I'll grant you that the study of evolution is created by the mind of man (at least on this planet). But the fact of evolution, as Watson describes it, is most definitely not created by the mind of man (unless you wish to defend some form of subjective idealism or even solipsism)."Who do you give credit for the "fact" of evolution??? Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution???
You're asking the wrong question, I think. Asking for a 'who' in this context is mistaken. Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency.
And then there's Aristotle. How many years did people depend on his laws?
And then there's Aristotle. How many years did people depend on his laws?
The key here is that Aristotle, as brilliant as he was, had no conception of empirical science as practiced since the late 15th century or so in the West. His results were arrived at by some observation, yes, but his theoretical conceptions were spun out of his reason and were not subject to empirical test.
So I'll point out that in my previous reply to you I wrote: "Well-established laws in science..."
"With some variations, this code is the same for viruses, bacteria, worms, human beings, beetles, mice and slugs."Interesting. And just where in the world did the complicated code come from? Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?
Uh, yes...but not all at once. 4 billion years is a very, very, very long time.
"Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency."
Your statement seems to admit that some things that happen, happen as a result of some conscious, directing agency. Or did you really mean that nothing happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.