Why are the conclusions of evolutionary theory, & presumably science in general, in some way violated enough by the implicit "underpinning" presence of metaphysics?
Which specific metaphysic are you referring to?
Answering your question directly (and skipping over many relevant/important points) : in a sense, they aren't. However, it must be understood that these conclusions do have a metaphysical foundation. Most Naturalists aren't even aware of, let alone acknowledge, this foundation.
Joralex writes:
If you are unaware of the metaphysical foundations of your pet theory then just let it go.
Please, no appeals to authority.
I am responding here out of courtesy only. It has been an observation of mine that Naturalists constantly contort words to make something appear out of nothing - must be all that practice with making macroevolution appear "possible".
Specifically, I am troubled with the insinuation that I am "appealing to authority". If it were possible to insult me, I'd find that insinuation 'insulting'. Pointing out that someone is 'ignorant' about something is merely just that. Ignorance is no sin - pride is.
Joralex
™ Version 4.2
