Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?

quote:

---

There is a 'science of evolution' (SE) and there is also a 'metaphysic of evolution' (ME) and the two are definitely not the same. Repeatedly one sees the SE being used as 'bait' when it's the ME that is actually being promoted.

---

An interesting assertion. Do you have evidence to back this up? Perhaps and example?

quote:

---

Here's an example that I'll present but not elaborate (it would be a dissertation onto itself): Communism (a social-political paradigm) is, by its very foundation, atheistic.

---

But isn't communism itself (as we define it today) based on a concept which is not fundamentally atheistic. Isn't it possible that the basic underlying principles of communism are not fundamentally atheistic, only the modern version of it? In other words, perhaps you have not penetrated to the true 'metaphysic' of communism.

quote:

---

Now, it should be quite apparent that a 'science' defined in such a way that it excludes at the outset anything but a materialistic view of nature wholly supports this social-political paradigm.

---

Not sure what you mean here. What is 'a science' compared to 'science?' Are you saying that some sciences are defined this way and others are not? Aren't you then simply avoiding the fundamental nature of science by making a narrow point?

quote:

---

A 'science' as, say, Isaac Newton would have defined it would not have been "acceptable" to the Communist Party. Science is but a pawn, a supporting cast, to the metaphysic that founds it.

---

It seems to me that you have to show that the 'metaphysic that founds science' is some how incorrect or fails to operate as necessary. You have not done this.Whether you believe it or not, many scientists espouse no particular metaphysic when it comes to their work, and are not concerned with the ultimate nature of existence. They are concerned with models that work and explain the world around them. The metaphysics and physics operated on completely separate planes.I am also not clear that a metaphysic 'founds' science. Rather, I think that naturalism (if this is how you describe our modern metaphysic) is based on science rather than the other way around.

quote:

---

The difficulty is that there is a feedback loop in this relationship. I'll not go there.

---

Good idea. If you did, some creationist would start muttering about another case of 'circular reasoning!'

quote:

---

I suspect that you et al. won't but I have to ask anyway : take my word for it, there is a ME.

---

I'm not so sure. It seems to me that the your 'ME' is simply a subset of naturalism which is applied in all science, not just evolutionary thinking. So, you are simply making a specious argument. If the ME is inherrently incorrect, why is not the MCE (metaphysic of civil engineering) not also suspect?You really need to show us that there is something wrong with your idea of ME. You might also explain to us why we should care.

quote:

---

By the way, I must point out that I've asked the question four times now to four different people - still no response. Do you promote solely the SE or are you really promoting the ME?

---

I thought this was clear as daylight and I seem to remember at least one direct response to you. But perhaps many here sense a trap. I promote what you call scientific evolution, particularly since it is a scientific endeavor to understand the world we live in.

quote:

---

If it's the former then we have no dispute. If it's the latter then you are promoting a metaphysic that clashes with the Christian metaphysic and that is the source of the dispute.

---

I am glad to hear that we have no dispute. In fact, the only reason there is an issue at all is that the biblical account in Genesis appears to disagree with evolution. Many christians have no problem with this and accept SE as the explanation of the diversity of life on earth.