What should we do if empirical evidence and materialist philosophy are going in different directions???
The biologists have to tell us candidly whether they are asking us to believe in materialism because of what they know from studying the facts of biology or whether they are so devoted to the philosophy that they are willing to disregard evidence that doesn't fit in.
2007-03-21 21:50:43 · 13 answers · asked by Blueryno 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No no no don't believe them. The bible has all the answers.
2007-03-21 21:53:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 7⤋
Biologists are scientists - their ideas and "philosophy" are based on evidence, not materialism, wishful thinking or religious claptrap.
The theory of evolution has stood ever since Darwin because ALL the scientific evidence points towards it being the most likely explanation of the succession of different species through millions of years of time. In fact the only reason it remains a theory is because it is difficult to test, requiring an experiment over millions of years. Nevertheless evolution has withstood every test that can be devised including comparative anatomy, carbon and geological dating, DNA sampling and a host of computer modelling techniques that were entirely unknown to Darwin.
A theory only stands and remains accepted as long as there is no contrary evidence. If contrary evidence is found then a new theory must be formulated which again fits all known facts. Unlike religionists, scientists do not pick and choose which facts to include and which to ignore. And unlike religionists, scientists are willing to change their concepts of reality to adjust to new known facts, rather that adhering blindly to a 2,000 year old book so obviously shot through with contradictions and inconsistencies that the only miracle in it is the fact that the pages don't curl up with embarassment.
2007-03-21 22:02:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Materialist philosophy IS empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is what we know of the material.
Biologists are scientists--no less so than chemists or astronomers. Scientists do not declare materialism to be true; they ASSume materialism, because nothing supernatural has been reliably observed. Only verifiable observations are used in science.
If evidence doesn't fit into a theory, they revise the theory. Unlike religious philosophy, science doesn't consider this a bad thing. It's the young-Earth creationists who routinely disregard evidence to hold onto their "inerrancy."
2007-03-21 22:18:14 · answer #3 · answered by RickySTT, EAC 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In answer to your question, there is a huge difference between fact and interpretation of the fact. Monarch Butterflies fly about 2000 miles to over winter at a place that they have never seen. That is a fact.
Those that interpret that fact start with "a priory" assumptions. These assumptions usually deal with philosophy. "Is there or is there not a metaphysical component to the universe?" There is no concrete proof either way.
The real problem occurs when a person assumes that his assumptions are the only valid or logical ones. Once that happens, the next step is usually to belittle those that do not hold those assumptions.
Why do monarchs fly 2000 miles to over winter?
To those that assume that there is no metaphysical aspect to the universe the standard answer is "It is part of their evolutionary development." This may or may not be logical, but the fact is that their assumption has directed them to that conclusion.
Likewise, to those that assume that there is a metaphysical aspect to the universe, the standard answer is "God designed them that way." This may or may not be logical either, but they too are directed to that conclusion by their assumptions.
You will often see in this forum a quote something like this "The facts of evolution prove that God does not exist." Do you see that the asker starts by assuming that his "a priory " assumptions are valid, and then he belittles those that do not agree with those assumptions. However, the question is really backward. You will seldom see questions like this. " We have proved that God does not exist, therefore evolution is true." or "We have proved that there is a God, therefore creation is true."
2007-03-22 01:33:03 · answer #4 · answered by free2bme55 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the evidence does not fit then the theory is wrong. That is what the scientific method is about. If somebody is found who falsifies evidence by making it up or hiding it they lose all credibility. It would be a total career destroyer.
Somebody devoted (as you put it) to scientific (natural) philosophy would never hide new evidence. Proving a theory wrong is worth as much as creating a new theory. Either way you become famous and get grants.
2007-03-21 22:16:51 · answer #5 · answered by U-98 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Scientific evidence if accepted as published must be reviewed repeatable and above reproach to be accepted widely by the scientific community.
There is NO FAITH INVOLVED!
2007-03-21 22:11:39 · answer #6 · answered by Judas. S. Burroughs. 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
first off, just 'cause i answered this doesn't mean i accept the label 'darwinist'.. although i wholeheartedly believe in common descent and evolution.
that's a confusing use of 'materialist' - please be more specific about these things 'going in different directions'.... i'm somewhat baffled. does this have to do with quantum physics? are you well read in that area?
2007-03-21 21:54:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I have a biology degree and I believe in God and evolution. We all see God differently.
2007-03-21 21:56:00 · answer #8 · answered by mitsugirl 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Believe what you want to believe.
2007-03-21 21:54:12 · answer #9 · answered by Max 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont understand your question, what evidence? who is candid?
2007-03-21 21:55:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need to rephrase your question...what is it?
2007-03-21 21:57:21 · answer #11 · answered by michael2003c2003 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋