Talk:Evolution - Revision history

Gzthompson at 05:25, April 2, 2017

2017-04-02T05:25:50Z

Angellight 888: /* Philosophy of Science: Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn */

2010-09-30T23:54:21Z

‎Philosophy of Science: Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn

Basil: /* Philosophy of Science: Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn */ Response to Angellight 888's suggestion

2010-09-30T14:33:18Z

‎Philosophy of Science: Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn: Response to Angellight 888's suggestion

Angellight 888: /* Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn */

2010-06-15T02:22:09Z

‎Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn

Angellight 888: Popper/Kuhn

2010-06-14T21:13:55Z

Popper/Kuhn

Fr Lev: /* The Enlightenment? */ new section

2008-10-16T16:16:24Z

‎The Enlightenment?: new section

Mike at 19:04, May 4, 2008

2008-05-04T19:04:33Z

Andrew: Reverted edits by Fank (Talk); changed back to last version by Ssmith165

2007-09-07T14:15:27Z

Reverted edits by Fank (Talk); changed back to last version by Ssmith165

Fank at 10:48, September 7, 2007

2007-09-07T10:48:40Z

Ssmith165: /* Compatibilism/Incompatibilism */

2006-09-11T05:47:48Z

‎Compatibilism/Incompatibilism

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:25, April 2, 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	==Link styles?==
		+	I notice that there are some inconsistencies with the style of works cited - some contributions provide extensive summaries (even arguments) from the articles cited, others simply reference the article. Perhaps in the interests of neutrality, a uniform standard should be applied.
		+	--[[User:Gzthompson\|Gzthompson]] ([[User talk:Gzthompson\|talk]]) 05:25, April 2, 2017 (UTC)
		+
	==Edited vandalism==		==Edited vandalism==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:54, September 30, 2010
Line 48:		Line 48:

	:However, this OrthodoxWiki article is about whether the dominant scientific theory of biological origins is compatible with Orthodox faith; it is not about the scientific validity of the dominant scientific theory. The latter should be argued in another forum, one on the subject of "boundary issues" in philosophy of science. --[[User:Basil\|Basil]] 14:33, September 30, 2010 (UTC)		:However, this OrthodoxWiki article is about whether the dominant scientific theory of biological origins is compatible with Orthodox faith; it is not about the scientific validity of the dominant scientific theory. The latter should be argued in another forum, one on the subject of "boundary issues" in philosophy of science. --[[User:Basil\|Basil]] 14:33, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Many Thanks Basil. You hit the nail on the head twice here, in identifying the main task and purpose involved:
		+	::# "whether the current state of evolutionary theory counts as science"; and
		+	::# stating that "This OrthodoxWiki article is about whether the dominant scientific theory of biological origins is compatible with Orthodox faith".
		+	::Provides excellent clarity and focus, and a clear base to go forward from. Archbishop Hilarion recently made an important statement in this regard, in: ''[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6584JX20100609?feedType=RSS&feedName=lifestyleMolt Russia Church wants end to Darwin school "monopoly"], REUTERS, Wed Jun 9, 2010 3:44pm EDT'':
		+
		+	:::''"The time has come for the monopoly of Darwinism and the deceptive idea that science in general contradicts religion. These ideas should be left in the past," senior Russian Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion said at a lecture in Moscow.''
		+	:::''"Darwin's theory remains a theory. This means it should be taught to children as one of several theories, but children should know of other theories too."''
		+
		+	::(Aside): I will also note something I heard from a recent Bible Study from the Orthodox Proto-Presbyter conducting the session, that historically, the "sciences" were not divorced from "theology", as they are today; and this divorce is a very recent phenomenon. As late as the 19th century, he mentioned as an example, that St Theophan the Recluse was in possession of the most advanced telescope in his day, as well as having an entire library of philosophical/scientific?? books. In addition, the first several books/chapters of one of St Gregory Palamas' writings is completely devoted to science. The fathers used the Sciences and Greek Philosophy as tools, however the difference is, that ''it was ONLY with proper Orthodox theology that God could be approached''. The divorce of the sciences & philosophy from theology is a recent phenomenon, and as a result, mankind today is actually far less intellectually capable than even a hundred years ago, putting us as a society and civilization in a very precarious and dangerous state. Incidentally the text we had originally began to discuss was from 1 Corinthians 1:23 "..but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles..".
		+	::In relation to this theme of a post-literate society, there is an interesting book on current affairs that has been sold out for quite some time in many stores, written by former New York Times War Correspondent Chris Hedges, called: ''"Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle."'', which considers some interesting and disturbing themes if true.
		+
		+	::Cheers, [[User:Angellight 888\|Angellight 888]] 23:54, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, September 30, 2010
Line 39:		Line 39:
	Cheers,		Cheers,
	[[User:Angellight 888\|Angellight 888]] 21:13, June 14, 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Angellight 888\|Angellight 888]] 21:13, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	:This OrthodoxWiki article is about whether the dominant scientific theory of biological origins is compatible with Orthodox faith.
		+
		+	:Kuhn and Popper are not, properly, "scientific philosophers," but "philosophers of science": they philosophize about "philosophy of science," a field which determines the boundaries and subject matter of science. Kuhn and Popper are certainly vitally important to understanding the current state of the field of philosophy of science, but neither are definitive voices (''i.e.'', the "last word") on the subject. Popper's statement would need to be understood within the fullness of his argument, whatever it is. Is it a conclusion? A premise in a larger argument? Both? Whatever its context, it cannot stand on its own simply on the basis of his authority, because it begs the question. It states as a declaration (assumes as solved) the very thing under consideration.
		+
		+	:You are absolutely correct: Understanding their thought is vitally important to understanding whether the current state of evolutionary theory counts as science (what Wolshchak has facetiously called "post-post-neo-Darwinism," meaning the label "Darwinism" ''per se'' is no longer applicable).
		+
		+	:However, this OrthodoxWiki article is about whether the dominant scientific theory of biological origins is compatible with Orthodox faith; it is not about the scientific validity of the dominant scientific theory. The latter should be argued in another forum, one on the subject of "boundary issues" in philosophy of science. --[[User:Basil\|Basil]] 14:33, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 I deleted the reference to the Enlightenment. Modern science is generally dated to the 16th and 17th centuries, while the Enlightenment is 18th century. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 16:16, October 16, 2008 (UTC)
-== Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn==
+== Philosophy of Science: Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn==
 Simply by way of "[[w:Quantification|quantifying]]" the theory of evolution, from the scientific side, I wanted to mention a centrally important quotation by '''[[w:Karl Popper|Sir Karl Popper]]''', widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, who stated that:
 :"Darwinism  is not a testable scientific theory, but a '''[[w:Metaphysics|metaphysical]]''' research program."

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:13, June 14, 2010
Line 27:		Line 27:

	I deleted the reference to the Enlightenment. Modern science is generally dated to the 16th and 17th centuries, while the Enlightenment is 18th century. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 16:16, October 16, 2008 (UTC)		I deleted the reference to the Enlightenment. Modern science is generally dated to the 16th and 17th centuries, while the Enlightenment is 18th century. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 16:16, October 16, 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn==
		+	Simply by way of "[[w:Quantification\|quantifying]]" the theory of evolution, from the scientific side, I wanted to mention a centrally important quotation by '''[[w:Karl Popper\|Sir Karl Popper]]''', widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, who stated that:
		+	:"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a '''[[w:Metaphysics\|metaphysical]]''' research program."
		+	In other words, in the research phase at any rate, it functions just like its own "belief system". See the Wikipedia article discussion of this here: [[w:Karl_Popper#Issue_of_Darwinism\|Karl_Popper#Issue_of_Darwinism]]/
		+
		+	Similarly, it is also very interesting that back in 1962, philosopher and historian of science '''[[w:Thomas Kuhn\|Thomas Kuhn]]''' published the landmark study in the sociology of knowledge, called ''"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions",'' popularizing the terms "paradigm" and "paradigm shift"; in this study, Kuhn sought to debunk the conception of '''cumulative scientific development as a myth'''. Since the Western Enlightenment, some scientists had advocated that ''if they had made great scientific discoveries, it was only because they had "stood on the shoulders of giants before them",'' adding to their work. Kuhn however, pointed out that this was bogus, and that new discoveries constantly obliterated what we THOUGHT we knew beforehand, replacing it with an entirely new set of reference points.
		+
		+	Not sure if mentioning these two scientific philosphers has any place in this article, but both of them have made very honest and valid observations surrounding the ''Basic Terms and Definitions'' of this subject (from the theory of evolution/scientific side), which should be defined and understood as a precedent to any meaningful discussion phase. At any rate, just sharing. :)
		+
		+	Cheers,
		+	[[User:Angellight 888\|Angellight 888]] 21:13, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, October 16, 2008
Line 23:		Line 23:

	There may be no "dogmatic" discussion but based on the following story it does have a major spiritual effect. Some saints are given the gift of telling sins through smell. Once Elder Joseph of the Holy Mountain met a man who had a unknown stench (meaning that He did not know what sin caused it). So he told the man that he should go to confession. It turned out that the stench was cause by the mans belief in evolution. Ssmith165, September 10, 2006		There may be no "dogmatic" discussion but based on the following story it does have a major spiritual effect. Some saints are given the gift of telling sins through smell. Once Elder Joseph of the Holy Mountain met a man who had a unknown stench (meaning that He did not know what sin caused it). So he told the man that he should go to confession. It turned out that the stench was cause by the mans belief in evolution. Ssmith165, September 10, 2006
		+
		+	== The Enlightenment? ==
		+
		+	I deleted the reference to the Enlightenment. Modern science is generally dated to the 16th and 17th centuries, while the Enlightenment is 18th century. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 16:16, October 16, 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, May 4, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	==Edited vandalism==
		+
		+	[[user:CharlesDarwin\|CharlesDarwin]] decided to vandalize this page. I have undone his work to the previous page.[[User:Mike\|Mike]] 19:04, May 4, 2008 (UTC)
		+
	OK. Now I've done it. I added a link to my own article on the subject. If there's an issue here, let me know and I'll deep-six it. --[[User:Basil\|Basil]] 17:24, March 14, 2006 (CST)		OK. Now I've done it. I added a link to my own article on the subject. If there's an issue here, let me know and I'll deep-six it. --[[User:Basil\|Basil]] 17:24, March 14, 2006 (CST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== EVOLUTION = FACT LOL ==
+OK. Now I've done it. I added a link to my own article on the subject. If there's an issue here, let me know and I'll deep-six it. --[[User:Basil|Basil]] 17:24, March 14, 2006 (CST)
-YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID BY YOUR GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOLS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONE GOD, WHEN IT IS CLEAR TO ALL ENTITIES THAT THERE ARE NO GODS, THANKS TO THE UNITED STATES AND THE JEWS. EVIL ACADEMIC BASTARDS WHO PREACH THE ONE THEORY ARE KEEPING YOU STUPID AND SHOULD BE KILLED. GOVERNMENT, RELIGION AND CORPORATE MONEYMOGULS ARE ALSO EVIL FOR SUPPRESSING EVOLUTION, AND NEED TO BE HANGED AT GALLOWS IF THEY DO NOT CHANGE THEIR WAYS.
+At the risk of multiplying "-isms," I appropriated the two terms ''compatibilism'' and ''incompatibilism'' primarily so that references, books, and external links could be marked WRT their general position in the current debate. In philosophy, these terms denote positions WRT to the free will debate: IOW, whether free will is compatible with determinism or not. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism Compatibilism and Incompatibilism] on Wikipedia. --[[User:Basil|Basil]] 19:33, March 14, 2006 (CST)
-"lol sum ppl r just 2 stuped to be SKEPTICAL. lots of christians in america? of course, that's why we've been callin all americans stupid for some time now. besides that, if the earth was fucking 10,000 years old, where do dinosaurs come in lol. gg god. just leave complete parts of our planets history out of teh book and make up some dumb story about light on the first day, but only create stars and the sun on day four. lol"
+Hi, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the balanced approach that your article takes, especially with the Compatabilism/Incompatabilism distinction. Well written. By the way, which approach would you say is more widespread within Orthodoxy? My priest, at least, is of the compatabilist persuasion.
--Frank Nauta
+--[[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] May 9, 2006, 11:23 (CST)
-* [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/].  Skeptic's Annotated Bible: some good reading material, if you have the balls and can truly be skeptical.
+Gabriela, they both get about equal play. I think some people don't realize how pervasive either view is because, frankly, most Orthodox don't get worked up about it, unless they're adult converts. Adult converts bring their own issues to Orthodoxy (nothing wrong with that; it's simply the nature of personal development). Most people, when pushed, will admit that it doesn't really matter to one's salvation which way one falls (which is not to say that they think it's an irrelevant question; just not one to get dogmatic about).--[[User:Basil|Basil]] 18:40, June 11, 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:47, September 11, 2006
Line 17:		Line 17:
	This contrasts evolutions philosophy which says man started as a lower form and through mutations and other things (very simply) over much time evolved into a human.		This contrasts evolutions philosophy which says man started as a lower form and through mutations and other things (very simply) over much time evolved into a human.
	I think it is vital in our times to understand what the Church has taught about man and his beginings, and it contrasts greatly with the philosophy of macro-evolution (dealing with how life began). Zachary, June 26, 2006		I think it is vital in our times to understand what the Church has taught about man and his beginings, and it contrasts greatly with the philosophy of macro-evolution (dealing with how life began). Zachary, June 26, 2006
		+
		+	There may be no "dogmatic" discussion but based on the following story it does have a major spiritual effect. Some saints are given the gift of telling sins through smell. Once Elder Joseph of the Holy Mountain met a man who had a unknown stench (meaning that He did not know what sin caused it). So he told the man that he should go to confession. It turned out that the stench was cause by the mans belief in evolution. Ssmith165, September 10, 2006