>LH >
> >Philosophical scientISM (materialism) teaches that evolution is a
> >mindless, purposeless process.
> >Some scientISTS understand evolution as a mindless, purposeless process.
> >Some people CLAIM that science teaches that evolution is a mindless,
> >purposeless process.
> >| !!!!! BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT _SCIENCE_ REALLY SAYS !!!!! |
SJ> This is just semantics, grounded in shifting definitions of
> "science" and "evolution". I get constantly reminded by TEs that
> science must be methodologically naturalistic to be science at all:
Not by this one you don't!
> LH>The scientific understanding of evolution is that it is a
> >stochastic process in which events which are not caused by the
> >organisms in question can affect their survival and/or their genetic
> >information. But as we theists (and a few atheists) know, that is
> >NOT necessarily the same as being a mindless, purposeless process.
> >(Proberbs 16:33 again.)
>
SJ> You are switching definitions here from:
>
> 1. "what The scientific understanding of evolution is", ie.
> "stochastic process in which events which are not caused by the
> organisms in question can affect their survival and/or their genetic
> information"; to:
>
> 2. what individual "theists" and "atheists" might understand
> evolution to be: "But as we theists (and a few atheists) know, that
> is NOT necessarily the same as being a mindless, purposeless
> process."
>
> This does not change, but rather confirms what I said, namely:
>
> "THE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION is that it is a
> mindless, purposeless, materialistic natural process" (my emphasis)
When a scientist says that evolution is a "stochastic process..." she is
speaking within the bounds of science.
When a scientist says that evolution is a "mindless, purposeless
process..." she has stepped outside the bounds of science.
When a scientist says that evolution is a "system which God designed,
sustained, and guided..." she has stepped outside the bounds of science.
I'm not re-defining any words here. I'm using them the way most
people use them, most of the time. Science isn't free from metaphysics
and the demarcation is fuzzy, but scientists _can_ agree about the first
statement while disagreeing about the second, third, and probably many
other metaphysical perspectives compatible with the first statement.
It's true that the extra-scientific perspective of "mindless, purposeless
process" has become sufficiently prevelant than a disturbingly large
fraction of scientists are confusing it for science. That's not a new
phenomenon.
A few decades ago, extra-scientific logical positivism ruled the land, and
was touted as THE scientific perspective. It wasn't, and the entire
scientific community now realizes it.
Loren Haarsma