Is Evolution Science or Philosophy?

Question

For this question, the definitions of terms used are

Evolution = the development of species into different types of animals over very long periods of time. e.g. fish evolving into modern day birds. A fruit fly evolving into another species of fruit fly is too short sighted. Evolution here is taken to mean evolution from one type of animal to another type of animal and include theories in like character to the Cambrian Explosion.

Science = "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." (www.dictionary.com)

Philosophy = "1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. 2. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them." (www.dictionary.com)

I am aware the question has been asked before. However, I wanted to ask the question myself, providing concrete definitions of critical terms.

I'd like to point out, given the history of the YA! boards, that I have not yet stated which view I hold to regarding evolution. Therefore, any immature criticisms or remarks about myself or my intelligence are not grounded in evidence. You may still make these remarks, but they will make you appear very unscientific and unreasonable (something scientists and philosophers, I'm sure, do not want to be seen as).

As I am a software engineer, I looked here for a good, brief description of top-down evolution.

Top-down evolution. - A revised process definition may be applied even to running
process instances by propagating the changes from the definition to the instance
level. ("Process Evolution Support in the AHEAD System" Markus Heller and Ansgar Schleicher and Bernhard Westfechtel)

As I understand you to mean by top-down biologically, I suppose you mean directional evolution. I am aware that not all thinkable paths of evolution are equally possible, or even possible at all. Top-down evolution, I think, predicts that the most drastic evolutionary differences(variations) would appear near the beginning, as opposed to the end. The top-down approach also says that the probabilities of developing one way or another at transition points are not even. (Gould) You can read about it at the American Scientist website. The article is " A More Modern Synthesis"

finding information via the internet on top-down evolution proved extremely difficult. I am aware that evolution does not mean Darwinism anymore, necessarily. I only used the Cambrian explosion as an example, not as a scientifically accepted fact.

I simply meant to define evolution to be very grand scale so as to produce all of the different types of animals we have today from relatively few types (or a single type) in the beginning. I wanted to avoid the argument using fruit flies, because the evolution of one species of fruit fly to another really doesn't show us much about the validity of the theory applied to producing cows from primordial organisms.

To let those interested know, I am reading the material on the TalkOrigins sight. I wish to gain a better knowledge of modern Evolution and philosophically reconstruct my views and developed a well supported viewpoint on this topic. That is part of my purpose for asking this question - YA! is the most interesting place to start.

Answer 1

By the definitions you have given, evolution is clearly science.

The evidence that there has been "development of species into different types of species" is based on observation *AND* experimentation.

The experimentation establishes the short-term *mechanisms* of evolution. Experiments with breeding confirm how dramatic the morphological changes are possible through evolution (change over generations) ... such as the morphological differences between great danes and chihuahuas. And your example of experiments showing "a fruit fly evolving into another species of fruit fly" confirms that speciation does occur through genetic isolation ... i.e. these are important experiments to show the *mechanism* by which temporary genetic isolation becomes permanent ... i.e. that speciation occurs that sets organisms on separate branches that are now free to evolve completely independently.

The observation establishes longer-term evidence that these short-term mechanisms can produce different "kinds" or "types" given times much longer than are possible in experiments ... and indeed have done so. This includes evidence from observations of populations on environments (such as the Galapagos islands) that have been isolated for much longer periods, to observations of fossils, comparative morphology, embryology, etc., ... but most dramatically, the observations of patterns in DNA in living organisms.

So yes, *IF* (as many creationists incorrectly claim) science was limited to direct *experimentation*, then long-term evolution might have trouble qualifying as a science (but then so would things like climatology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics of galaxies, stars, planets, etc., and large swaths of theoretical physics). But, as your definition correctly points out that science is based on knowledge gained from both *experimentation* AND *observation*, evolution is clearly a science in every sense of the word.

{edit}

>"I simply meant to define evolution to be very grand scale ..."

But there is no scientific barrier or division between this grand scale and the small scale (what creationists call 'macroevolution' vs. 'microevolution' ... without any evidence at all of a natural barrier between the two). The theory *IS* about large-scale (long-term) accumulation of small-scale (short-term) changes.

> "I wanted to avoid the argument using fruit flies, because the evolution of one species of fruit fly to another really doesn't show us much about the validity of the theory applied to producing cows from primordial organisms."

Yes it does! It is a necessary element in the explanation of the transition from fish-to-birds to show how a single species can split into two *permananently* isolated species ... in other words a fish into a different kind of fish. The exact same process that explains fish-to-different-fish, explains lobefinned-fish-to-lungfish and also extends to fish-to-amphibians and then to reptiles to dinos to birds ... a long sequence of small changes.

The only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is TIME. And TIME is precisely why micro-evolution is accessible within the time-frame of *experiments*, while macro-evolution requires evidence gathered through *observation* ... but this is not a difference as far as nature is concerned, only a difference in how we humans study it ... and this is not a significant difference as far as science ... because both experiment and observation are fully legitimate methods for gathering evidence in science.

Answer 2

Evolution is science, of course. Uh, one physicist has suggested it's possible for some microbes on Earth to have come from elsewhere. Given the evolution is a BIOLOGICAL theory, and that the pysicist has simply suggested a POSSIBILITY doesn't make evolution philosophy and not science. There's still no reason to reject evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Even the scientist cited in the article doesn't deny it. (And, BTW, that someone has speculated about something doesn't make the speculation part of science.) It isn't true that "you cannot prove either because they are a matter of philosophy" -- IF we found a microbe that was unrelated to all other life, and that couldn't have evolved on Earth, that would be proof. "Some life on Earth came from elsewhere" is an empirical claim, not a "philosophical" one (a conceptual claim). It's a matter of fact or not. Thus, the nature of the claim is empirical (scientific) even though there is no evidence for it, thus, it isn't a claim that science accepts as part of evolutionary theory. I feel that my explanation probably won't help someone so completely unclear as to what science actually IS.

Answer 3

" Knowledge, or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method " Miriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary 11th edition.
Perhaps a dictionary upgrade is indicated here. I was just reading a paper on the Cambrian yesterday. I seriously doubt that you understand what a biologist means by " top down " evolution, otherwise why bring up the Cambrian, which is only a " hot button " for creationists and their ID running dogs.
The theory of evolution by natural selection is the backbone of biological science and to think other wise is to be deluded. I would give you talk origins web address, but I think I would be wasting my time.
Prove me wrong by explaining what a biologist means by " top down " evolution and I will not think you a creationist, or ignorant is this area.

Now that I see that you understand the " top down " concept, why is it you do not seem to understand the biological species concept? We have produced dogs of varied and interesting types from wolves in thousands of years. Primordial to cows is not that great a stretch, especially when backed by the fossil, molecular genetic, morphological and developmental evidence. If you understand " top down ", which is, comparatively, complex, why not simple speciation?
By the way, " top down " is a extreme minority position. The evidence points to more gradualistic processes; not including the undiscribed process ( extra mechanism ) that Gould proposed.
Reaserch polyploidy. We sometimes have problems with engineers approach to design and the " blind watchmaker " algorythim that is natural selection.

Answer 4

many try to use philosophical arguments to study evolution, but in truth it comes down to the science of the evidence. Go to any natural history museum, ask them what their specialty is and they will have thousands if not hundreds of thousands of fossils categorized, measured, poked and prodded.

Its the facts that matter, not what you or I think of them

The Page museum (commonly known as the La Brea tar pits) has pulled out a million bones since 1906. the process of cataloguing and using for evidence goes on to this day, but it will take time for researchers to go through this data in their specific field. Only until recent decades did we have the technology to find some of the smaller (even microscopic) fossil evidence.

Philosophy has nothing to do with it, its what we find!

Answer 5

It is a science. The theory of evolution is that the term evolution (change in a gene pool over time) is what lead to the variety of species on the planet. This theory is supported through observation, experimentation, scientific scrutiny, and evidence.

Answer 6

It's a science, it is studied scientifically. I will give you that Darwin probably discovered it philisophically, but proof of evolution comes in the form of observation and experimentation. Philosophical arguments are fundamentally based on applications of logic and cannot always be experimentally determined.

I dispute the definition of evolution you posted, it makes no mention of mutation, the fundamental atomic unit of change that is needed to cause a change in speciation over time.

Answer 7

In my opinion (because 'evolution' is OPINIONS, of 'some' biologist's and all evolutionists), 'Evolution' is neither a Philosophy nor a Science.

Palaeontology, and Anthropology etc, are the Scientific bodies that study and research, for example, the fossil remains of prehistoric species, and 'Evolution' is 'one' of the 'opinions' (theories) of what those fossil remains indicate of human origin.

One of the Philosopher's tools, 'logic', precludes theorising evolution, especially with such sparse (if any at all) mediatory fossil evidence to substantiate the factual conclusion of it, and (Philosophy) has been accused, by evolutionists, of, "not being in the real world", because of it's criticism of of the 'fact' of evolution (Epistemologists have also been accused of "nit-picking", because they object to the evolutionists use of the word 'fact' for 'theory' (Talkorigins).

Therefore, Evolution is nothing more than a Religion and getting more cult-like with every dying breath of the 'theory' of it', as all the 'thumbs-down' I will now get from it's fanatical followers, will prove.

Answer 8

To me, the critical difference between science and philosophy is that science requires physical evidence to support its assertions. The fossil record certainly amounts to physical evidence. I have no trouble accepting evolution as a valid scientific theory.

Answer 9

Fundamentally, science. It has been discovered, experimented with, and proven via scientific evidence.

Educationally, it's philosophical. the way a person addresses evolution and examines it and chooses to (or not to) believe it, is based on their philosophical examination of the evidence.

Answer 10

I believe that the best description of evolution is a theory that has been fairly well confirmed. Which would put it under the science category.
cheers