Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: doc30
Rejecting the ToE is not a blanket rejection of science in general. Evolution is a branch of science; not all science is evolution.

So is it better for a special interest group to decide what is and isn't to be taught in public schools using the power of the judiciary to force on unwilling parents and students that philosophy?

As far a creationists undermining science, I guess the great strides made in science for the hundreds of years before Darwin's theory was published were just coincidental. Someone probably forgot to tell Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, etc. that science couldn't be *properly* established all the while believing that everything was created by a God of order. My understanding is that if they had not had that concept, they would not have started looking of patterns of regularity and orderliness in the world around them.

Somewhere along the line, science got divorced from philosophy and morality and it shouldn't have been. It needs both to moderate it and keep it from being abused by man. Besides, if science has nothing to do with philosophy, then perhaps there should be some change made in giving scientists who highly specialize in their fields a . Perhaps they could rename it.

19 posted on 05/15/2006 7:21:39 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: metmom

I have misgivings about completely divorcing science from philosophy. I think it is neccessary as a guide to why we research what we do. It obviously should have no impact on the evidence, or results. However, it does serve as a guide for applying science to our lives, and formulating the questions for science to answer. The questions from a religious person, may be very different from one who is not. The science will be the same, but the person's interpretation of the results may not, and someone has to interpret. This would vary according to the field of science since there are different sets of codes that influence each. Medical research has different questions, and implications than does research regarding ToE. How did we develop these codes if it weren't for philosophy? How do we have any direction from which to pursue science? And, whose direction is correct? Can we answer that in complete absolutes? Further more, without philosophy, why do we even care to pursue science anyway? Didn't ToE start with a philosophical curiousity on Darwin's part?


38 posted on 05/15/2006 9:24:30 AM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson