Posted on 08/28/2006 12:02:43 PM PDT by Abathar
Malarkey. The "Theory of Evolution" has been under continuous scrutiny ever since it was promulgated. Get your Creationist prejudices out of the way and read some history.
Maybe in things. That seems to be the basis of modern science.
Who do you mean by "he," and what is the difference between "psychological" and "real" certainty?
I am a creationist only in that I accept the theological doctrine that the world was created by God. Within fifteen years, Darwinism was the accepted biological wisdom of German biology. Within a generation, most children in German secondary schools were being educated in its tenets.
TOID?
Just out of curiosity, do you have a link to a source for that?
"He" was Plato and his idealism was quite different from Kant's. Psychologial certainty is what we feel to be true. Real certainty is what we feel when we step in front of a speeding truck.
If you can get hold of it. My copy has disappeared so I am depending on my memory. I will look for something more accessible. But the title reminds me that pupular acceptace of his theory by the educated public came before acceptance by scientists. One reason was that the age of the world was thought to be only tens of millions of years, certainly not enough time for a trial and error process to work itself out.
The Descent of Darwin: Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914 by Alfred Kelly
Review author[s]: Ruth Rinard
German Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Jan., 1982), pp. 133-134
doi:10.2307/405620
BTW, Kelly has a web site. You can e-mail him directly and ask him. I may be all wet about his opinion.
His whole method was a way of getting at the truth, and please remember that Plato, who put words in Socrates mouth, was the opponent of Isocrates, the sophist. In modern terms, Isocrates was a positivist; Plato was not.
I'm sure that most Catholic common folk are convinced that God created man and woman.
Good.
And to be consistent, Catholic intellectuals would have to condition that by saying that evolution seems to be true.
Good for him!!!
As is any religious believer---but the point is that any form of creationism IS NOT SCIENCE, and cannot BE science. The question of creation is ultimately a metaphysical one.
"Within fifteen years, Darwinism was the accepted biological wisdom of German biology. Within a generation, most children in German secondary schools were being educated in its tenets."
So?? Actually it was the accepted biological wisdom of ALL BIOLOGY, not just German. I would HOPE that if a scientific discovery of that magnitude were to be made today that "most children in ......secondary schools" would become educated in its tenets "within a generation".
If one takes it that the Resurrection actually took place, then it is as much a fact as that a peach tree bears fruit.
Since I'm a Roman Catholic, I obviously agree. But the point is that such truths are not part of nor provable by science--they are outside the realm of science. You can prove the existence of God by reason (as the Catholic church teaches), but NOT by means of any known scientific test or method. If you come up with one, I guarantee you'll win the Nobel.
Darwin discovered nothing. He was not the first person to posit evolution. What he did propose was a mechanism by which the descendents of certain animals became a different sort of animal. He was not even unique in discerning this and his theory was by no means universally accepted by geologists, who did not see and do not see the fossil record that Darwin predicted. This does not disprove his theory, but only goes to show that
many people lept to a conclusion they found attractive, just as many others dismissed it out of hand.
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.