I know Descartes said to question everything, but you have to start somewhere!
2/15/2009 2:01:26 AM
Looks like someone just learned the meaning of "a priori" and wanted to use it as much as they could.
2/15/2009 2:13:18 AM
Evolutionary theory specifically doesn't make any assumptions as to how the first organisms came to exist. It attempts to describe what happens to life over many generations when it's already here, so of course it starts from the assumption that the process has something to work with. This could have arisen by the assembly of molecules in the oceans of the early Earth, or because it had been put here by aliens (which works both ways; if in the future we send terrestrial organisms to a hypothetical planet orbiting Alpha Centauri they don't stop evolving because they didn't originate on that planet), or even the creationists' hypothesis.
2/15/2009 2:19:02 AM
I beg to differ. It is quite possible to test evolution, because we have discovered THROUGH OBSERVATION:
- natural selection - the organisms best suited to a given environment tend to reproduce more
- kin selection - organisms often help their family members because their genes are still getting passed on through their family members
- sexual selection - one sex 'determines' how a particular trait the opposite sex has changes (such as fancy tails on male birds)
- speciation by multiple mechanisms
You don't have to accept abiogenesis (which is probably what you're referring to anyway, everyone likes to mix that together with evolution) to see that evolution occurs by these means.
2/15/2009 2:22:52 AM
Evolution can only be true if you assume truth is true!! WOW!!! We've found the FATAL FLAW of evolutionism.
2/15/2009 2:38:43 AM
What you call "materialism" is actually known as methodological naturalism, and it is the most fundamental principle in science. It does not state that supernatural causes do not exist, but that the scientist works under the assumption that they are not affecting observations. Without methodological naturalism, this "a priori belief" of yours, science as we know it would not exist. Evolution is as much a religion as belief in Newton's laws of motion.
2/15/2009 3:05:22 AM
Is using philosophy to disprove the ToE the new thing now? Something tells me that this won't be very succesful. Shit, they'll have to prove their own existence before they can tackle anything else.
2/15/2009 4:27:38 AM
Um... wrong link?
2/15/2009 4:45:05 AM
Please don't let this have been my sister.
2/15/2009 5:10:38 AM
Find a fossil of a modern day animal in a place where it clearly shouldn't, and evolution has a major problem.
Witness a creature getting magic'd into existence by God, evolution disproven, there are ways to falsify evolution, you just don't have them.
2/15/2009 5:55:27 AM
This went to the absurd zone.
2/15/2009 9:28:20 AM
Why do they keep saying homeschooled kids are smarter?
2/15/2009 10:55:37 AM
How is evolution a religion?
Evolution requires evidence. Evolution needs no faith.
Religion doesn't require evidence. Religion needs faith.
Notice the difference, or are you too much of a moron?
2/15/2009 1:34:59 PM
"The problem with your argument"
Stopped reading there.
2/15/2009 3:32:00 PM
Why is evolution even such a big deal for religious people? Organisms change over time, based on several factors, to suit their environment. So? Why do they care so much? This is one of many things about religion that I truely cannot comprehend. Why is this such a problem for them?
2/15/2009 5:06:50 PM
The problem with your argument is that you fail to realize that evolution ALSO cannot be tested via the Scientific Method.
Dear madam, I suspect your claim of understanding the term 'evolution' to be very much on par in validity with your royal status.
2/15/2009 6:36:39 PM
That a priori is pretty slick. Are they bringing in their heavy hitters?
2/15/2009 9:06:26 PM
Evolution does not assume materialism, atheism, or any 'ism'. It just happens.
2/15/2009 9:19:35 PM
Evolutionary theory DOES in fact require a material approach. That is because it is a scientific theory and science is an explicitly materialist program. If the Universe were not real, and if we could learn nothing about it through observation, the theory of evolution would have no explanatory power. Neither would the theory of gravitation, or the theory of a helioentric solar system, & cetera.
I'm not sure why all the chatter here about abiogenesis? It doesn't seem to be an component of the quote.
2/16/2009 5:29:32 AM
@jc: Actually, even seeing an animal magically appear wouldn't disprove the already observed instances of evolution; it would just mean that not all animals originated that way.
@El Guapo: Because fundies use "evolution" to include abiogenesis, as they don't know the difference.
2/16/2009 5:39:27 AM
What have I been saying about asking yahoos for answers?
2/19/2010 2:02:53 AM
That prior belief is called hypothesis.
We will modify it until it all fits.
2/20/2010 1:19:30 PM
You got me, the scientific method does indeed assume that there is an objective reality that one can observe, measure and analyse...
You are, of course, at liberty to dispute that assumption, though I can't imagine who you think you are disputing it with if you believe there's no objective reality.
2/20/2010 4:55:02 PM
\\apparently evolution can only be true if one makes the leap of faith to assume that matter exists.//
So what you're implying is that matter doesn't exist, because you refuse to acknowledge evolution.
I refute it thusly
2/20/2010 8:52:49 PM