Evolution and Science 'so called'-

My concerns are in which use of the word 'science' is applied. This word is confined to the physicals, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy. But evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy. Under cover of this wide sweep of thier net, they assume to speak with the special authority of beyond scientific natures upon questions respecting which no such authority exists either in them or in anyone else. It seems to be on the strength of thier expert assumption that they designate as pseudo-science or theory any opinion, or teaching, or belief, different from thier own.I will illustrate what I mean by an example. Comparative anatomy is one of the branches of the larger science of Biology in which they are experts; and, like all the other branches which grow out of the one great stem, as a subject of physical investigation, it runs up into ideas and conceptions which belong to, or border on, the region of metaphysics. Who gives the authority beyond our sciences?Now, if not absolutely in this conclusion, all the physical facts leading up to it, Biology is an authority in the strictest sense of the word. Science is an original investigator, and if any other man were to contest thier facts, or even thier interpretation of them, without thier independent observation, Biology and science in general would be entitled to pronounce the opposition opinions to be ‘pseudo-science.'Ultimately one day maybe scientific conclusion may become itself the basis of a farther investigation, and in this farther investigation science then maybe will have no authority at all. We are all entitled to ask as a question, not of physical science, but of philosophy and interpretations.This is a question of the very highest order today in which science and biologist is not necessarily experts. That laboratory in which the analyses is made and operated is a laboratory to us all in which we can all work. And if in this higher sphere of investigation other men are able to reach conclusions which General science disputes, it is at least possible that it is thier contention, and not that of his opponent, which best deserves the ‘pseudo' prefix. They ridicule the opposition. Yet it needs no expert to see that thier own theory at best stands exactly on the same level with a term called ‘realistic figment.'I have dwelt upon this point because men are very apt to be intimidated by authorities in ‘science,' when in reality no sort of authority exists. They want to talk about 'scientific sins' quite in the language and spirit of religion. I know a good many scientific men of the very highest standing who totally dissent from biology and are by no means inclined to accept evolution expositions, even of physical science, when those expositions travel beyond the particular branch in which science is only an observer.Evolutionist propounds that these old logical difficulties which we attach to all our beliefs, and still more to all our history, are only the relations between mind and matter. That no outside authority exist and it is ours alone.In conclusion, let me express that science in general do an important service to man. Though past says, most truly, that the case with all new doctrines, and so with evolution, 'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.' These words indicate vaguely and tenderly, but significantly, a fact which I stated, and will again state with emphasis. There has been not merely a tendency to degeneration into fanaticism, but a pronounced development of it, and a widespread infection from it in the language of science. They accept this though this is a work which has yet to be finished to be considered facts. They can only work with the materials which are supplied by only physical means. The tendency of new doctrines to degenerate into fanaticism is one of the ‘laws’ to be traced in the long history of humans, and all those who help to resist it are among the benefactors of their kind.Edited by Admin, : Add blank lines between paragraphs and spaces after periods.

Hi Scotty,I'm going to promote this now. I hope it won't be too much to ask for you to divide a message into paragraphs and place a space or two after the periods at the end of sentences.

Thread copied here from the Evolution and Science 'so called'- thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

will do!thanks

What makes you think that Metaphysics or Philosophy are 'Science'?

Philosophy has always been hand in hand in science, recently less so.
As for metaphysics I did not intend to imply that it was but should and that it is valid as an aspect beyond our current sciences.And again knowing that there are aspects beyond our sciences means speculation is all we have in the area of evolution and Big Bang, not exzacts.

What knowledge do we have of any aspects that are beyond our science?Since when has Philosophy been hand in hand with science?What makes you think there is any reason to consider metaphysics as anything other than mental masturbation or that it is valid for anything other than a good laugh?What makes you think that all we have is speculation related to the Big Bang?

From your post, it seems to me that you are coming here with a need to denigrate those sciences with whose conclusions you disagree for religious reasons.I would think that any endeavor that approached its data using the scientific method could be termed scientific. This does include many of the "soft" sciences as well as the "hard" sciences which are traditionally accepted by creationists. And if the method is the same in both, what exactly is it you are disagreeing with if not the conclusions?Your point that experts and authorities should recognize their limitations is well taken, however.But given that, are you really advocating throwing out all the accumulated data, accomplishments, and theories that went into evolution? Is there nothing within that large field, and its various subdisciplines, that you are willing to accept?

Why would biology not be included to science its all measurable observable testable? As supposed to magical??? I supose we should ask angels, daemons, invisible pink unicorns, Zeus, Posajdon, and the flying spaghetti monster for some insight on magic. Ok name a few But tones of theories have been disproven and replaced with new ones.
We used to think cold as in lack of heat was actually a particle. We used to think the world is flat, we used to think the earth is at the centre of the universe, that there is a planet Vulcan between mercury and the sun, spontaneous generation, expanding earth, Phlogiston Theory, The Martian Canals, Luminiferous Aether, The Blank Slate Theory(tabula rasa), Phrenology, Einsteins Static Universe, oh and lets not forget the theory that the earth is 6000 years old and everything was created in its current form.All of these and more well maybe not the last one had evidence that supported them but along came new evidence new observations that contradicted these theories so they had to be discarded and new ones formed. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

What knowledge do we have of any aspects that are beyond our science?None.So we have obtained all the aspects of science?Since when has Philosophy been hand in hand with science?It always has.Its has been less and less since physical science determines it is no longer needed.But since the beginning before science as whole was developed philosophy was inside the sciences.What makes you think there is any reason to consider metaphysics as anything other than mental masturbation or that it is valid for anything other than a good laugh?Because you and all scientist who seem to think they are authroties in the know all and be all of creation and how it became.When any real scientist knows the work is never really done because there is more to learn.You can call the step beyond what we know today anything you want,I call it metaphysics,but you know and I know there is more than what we have.What makes you think that all we have is speculation related to the Big Bang?Easy.You and I will live maybe 70 years, these theories has a whole, evolution and Big Bang, are 150 years old.Two generations.So I ask you what makes you think two generation 150 years of work is even close to determing anything beyond human growth?

Much of it that is in reason.Reaching beyond bounds into speculation is not reasonable.

Hi Scotty,Thanks for dividing your messages into paragraphs, but could I ask you again to place a space or two after the periods at the ends of sentences? You seem to include a space after most commas, but not after periods. A space goes after question mark, colon and semicolon, too.

Why would biology not be included to science its all measurable observable testable?Never said is was not science?As supposed to magical??? I supose we should ask angels, daemons, invisible pink unicorns, Zeus, Posajdon, and the flying spaghetti monster for some insight on magic. I do not apply magic.Though I do and I know many others as well that feel spiritual.That is beyond physical means.And just because you can not hold it, touch it, or see it, or have not exsperinced it, mean it does not apply to this topic.Ok name a few.Why?Would you put people you know that are not involved in this discussion in a online forum.Because it is not just to put peoples names inside forums without thier consent.But tones of theories have been disproven and replaced with new ones. My point and this one could as well.We used to think cold as in lack of heat was actually a particle. We used to think the world is flat, we used to think the earth is at the centre of the universe, that there is a planet Vulcan between mercury and the sun, spontaneous generation, expanding earth, Phlogiston Theory, The Martian Canals, Luminiferous Aether, The Blank Slate Theory(tabula rasa), Phrenology, Einsteins Static Universe, ohlets not forget the theory that the earth is 6000 years old and everything was created in its current form.?You havent proved that the earth isnt older than 10,000 years and to say you have lives inside fantasy.No man has ever seen something billions,millions,and even hundreds of thousands of years old to determine if thier methods are in fact correct.You must have a eye witness.If dating techniques were on trial in a court room and all evidence brought forth you would have a hard time convincing a jury without a reasonable doubt that you are right.All of these and more well maybe not the last one had evidence that supported them but along came new evidence new observations that contradicted these theories so they had to be discarded and new ones formed.
Again to early to say this one will not be disproved.

I'm sorry but that is just word salad. It may simply be a language issue. Is English a second or third language and are you using something like Google Translate?That makes no sense as a sentence. Of course folk know there is more to learn, but metaphysics is NOT a method to learn anything. Science puts what it doesn't know in a folder labeled "I don't know the answer to that yet".But the Big Bang or evolution or even abiogenesis don't need to go in that folder. They go in a folder labeled "There is still a FEW things we don't understand about this yet".

We agree there!We take two different sides of the arguement.