Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To "Hitchy"--Creation discussion with high school science teacher
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5148 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 9 of 10 (94100)
03-23-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 5:07 AM


Wow! That's A lot to Talk About
Thanks for getting back to me, servant. I also appreciate everyone else's input. I will be addressing you as much as my schedule will allow right now and ask for everyone's patience ahead of time.
Let's start with my intro--I am a he and I consider myself a rational skeptic. I question evolution as much as anyone else. However, the more I question everything that would fall under the umbrella of evolution, the more I see how factual certain aspects are. For example, the theory of common descent is pretty much a fact. If I limit myself to a purely scientific viewpoint, then there is no way I can say that we do not share a common ancestor with every other organism out there and that there is a nested hierarchy that shows how organisms are interrelated. The evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that to decry it as false after seeing the evidence is academically dishonest.
Now, if I go outside the boundaries of science--which would then make my endevor non-scientific--I could come up with any explanation I want. Science is what scientists do. We come up with naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena that is verifiable (testable), falsifiable, and based on natural laws. I we go outside of the strict definition of science then the whole field becomes bankrupt for lack of not only boundaries to what we can know but also a foundation on which we can build our knowledge. I cannot back up anything with the Upanishads or the Bahatva-Gida (I think that's how they are spelled). I am certain that you would balk at anything I bring up from any other religious tradition, so please don't attempt to intertwine the bible with science.
The biological species concept might have difficulty dealing with certain organisms intrabreeding and with asexually reproducing organisms, but it is a working scientific definition with great explanatory power. "Kind" means nothing in scientific circles. "Kind" is as subjective as the religion that spawned it. Please, let's not waste anymore time on a term that is useless, since that will make the argument useless. Time for class. More later...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:07 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024