Is science more than evolution?

[Resha Caner]

Is science more than evolution?

 

[fenix144]

Science is everything that explains the natural world.

Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Biology, Human biology, Zoology. And there are subsets to nearly all of these fields. It's just huge.

Why would evolution be all there is to science?

 

[Resha Caner]

Why would evolution be all there is to science?

An understandable interpretation of my question, but not the one I meant. I debated phrasing it various ways, but I like the final form. I expected there might be some "define it" steps in this discussion.

An alternate version might be: Is science only an evolutionary process? Or: Is science only a consequence of evolution? In other words, if we are driven by evolution (not saying I accept that, but let's lay it out there for the sake of argument), and we drive science, then, in the end, is science driven by evolution?

 

[Geologist]

Is science more than evolution?

YES

 

[Blayz]

An alternate version might be: Is science only an evolutionary process?

No

Is science only a consequence of evolution?

No

In other words, if we are driven by evolution (not saying I accept that, but let's lay it out there for the sake of argument), and we drive science, then, in the end, is science driven by evolution?

In other words, if we are driven by evolution (not saying I accept that, but let's lay it out there for the sake of argument), and we drive cars/building construction/fine dining, then, in the end, are cars/building construction/fine dining driven by evolution?

 

[fenix144]

Science is driven by our lust for knowledge.
We are not driven by evolution per say.

 

[Resha Caner]

YES

Why?

No

Why?

 

[Resha Caner]

Science is driven by our lust for knowledge.
We are not driven by evolution per say.

Love was once explained to me this way:

Sexual reproduction affords an advantage over asexual reproduction by introducing variety to the species. Love encourages sexual reproduction. Therefore, animals with the "love" emotion are selected over those without it. As such, "love" is merely a consequence of evolution.

Maybe you don't agree with that assessment. Regardless, you still need to explain the method that allows you to distinguish evolutionary motivations from non-evolutionary motivations. And, how did those motivations arise if not by an evolutionary mechanism?

In other words, I can take the "love" scenario and replace it with any human activity (X).

X provides advantage Y.
Therefore, species demonstrating X are selected over those without X.
X, therefore, is a consequence of evolution.

In this case, X = science, or, as you say it, our lust for knowledge.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is science more than evolution?

Science is a method for acquiring knowledge, evolution is one such acquired piece of knowledge. One isn't 'more' than the other.

 

[sfs]

An alternate version might be: Is science only an evolutionary process? Or: Is science only a consequence of evolution? In other words, if we are driven by evolution (not saying I accept that, but let's lay it out there for the sake of argument), and we drive science, then, in the end, is science driven by evolution?

I don't know what it means for us to be "driven" by evolution, but we are certainly the products of evolution, and therefore everything we do is also somehow the result of evolution. So science is the result of evolution, as are creationism, high school football and internet forums. Of course, all of these are also the product of the Big Bang, and of stellar nucleosynthesis, quantum electrodynamics and organic chemistry. It's not clear to me what's gained by singling out evolution and science.

 

[mpok1519]

science exists whether or not humans (driven to explore science, as apart of our evolutionary nature), exist.

 

[sfs]

Love was once explained to me this way:

Sexual reproduction affords an advantage over asexual reproduction by introducing variety to the species. Love encourages sexual reproduction. Therefore, animals with the "love" emotion are selected over those without it. As such, "love" is merely a consequence of evolution.

Maybe you don't agree with that assessment. Regardless, you still need to explain the method that allows you to distinguish evolutionary motivations from non-evolutionary motivations. And, how did those motivations arise if not by an evolutionary mechanism?

In other words, I can take the "love" scenario and replace it with any human activity (X).

X provides advantage Y.
Therefore, species demonstrating X are selected over those without X.
X, therefore, is a consequence of evolution.

In this case, X = science, or, as you say it, our lust for knowledge.

That's just bad evolutionary biology. Leaving aside confusion about the level of selection(*) it's not at all true that all traits have been positively selected for. A trait can occur because it is the side effect of some other trait that was positively selected for, or it can occur as a result of neutral evolution.

(*) It's almost always individuals who experience selection, not species.

 

[Geologist]

I don't know what it means for us to be "driven" by evolution, but we are certainly the products of evolution, and therefore everything we do is also somehow the result of evolution. So science is the result of evolution, as are creationism, high school football and internet forums. Of course, all of these are also the product of the Big Bang, and of stellar nucleosynthesis, quantum electrodynamics and organic chemistry. It's not clear to me what's gained by singling out evolution and science.

Evolution is a scientific theory, it's a very good theory and is very strongly backed by a wealth of evidence. Having said that, it is possible; however unlikely, that evolution could be falsified. Thus I would argue that even if evolution were falsified, we would still have science.

 

[Resha Caner]

science exists whether or not humans (driven to explore science, as apart of our evolutionary nature), exist.

The things we observe would exist without us, but not science as a "thing unto itself." That is a product of the human mind.

Of course, since observation affects the thing being observed (mainly at the quantum level), some might argue that even the things we observe wouldn't exist without us.

 

[Resha Caner]

Evolution is a scientific theory, it's a very good theory and is very strongly backed by a wealth of evidence. Having said that, it is possible; however unlikely, that evolution could be falsified. Thus I would argue that even if evolution were falsified, we would still have science.

Possibly. But that would require speculating about a cause other than evolution. Let's stick to what we "know" (or what evolutionists think they know).

BTW, it's interesting to do a search on alternative causes. Of course most biologists wrap their alternate theories in the evolutionary banner (not all, but most). I was surprised by how many alternatives to mutation are being proposed as the mechanism. Not that any of those alternatives are really winning any support, but still, I was surprised ...

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't know what it means for us to be "driven" by evolution, but we are certainly the products of evolution, and therefore everything we do is also somehow the result of evolution. So science is the result of evolution, as are creationism, high school football and internet forums.

OK. Since it's not a theory I subscribe to, I'll allow someone else to choose the wording if that works better. But, yeah, that would seem to be the conclusion.

Of course, all of these are also the product of the Big Bang, and of stellar nucleosynthesis, quantum electrodynamics and organic chemistry.

I realize that. I was trying to keep it simple.

It's not clear to me what's gained by singling out evolution and science.

Since evolution tends to be an explosive and dogmatically defended word, we can choose another. What I was really going for was a "root cause."

Looking at it from another angle, science currently seems to accept 2 general types of "forces" (I'm using the word somewhat generically, so we needn't restrict ourselves to the strong force, weak force, etc.):
* deterministic
* random (which some people merely consider to be complex deterministic forces we can't explain)

So, if the "evolutionary" process is merely a big Monte Carlo simulation where random events are being selected by some deterministic framework (and possibly some interactions among the random events), is science anything more than random guessing to see what determinism selects?

Those who win the big prize (i.e. find the answer to a problem) claim otherwise. But if they are considered within the soup of all the people whose attempts were falsified (all the supposed false "goddidit" claims of religion), aren't they just part of the Monte Carlo game?

Or, for those who see "random" as complex determinism, wasn't the outcome the scientist found determined?

If not, what "force" am I not including in the list?

 

[Geologist]

Possibly. But that would require speculating about a cause other than evolution. Let's stick to what we "know" (or what evolutionists think they know)...

Well, then let's talk about what we know. Charles Darwin did not formulate the idea of natural selection until the mid-1800's. Many people who lived during and before that time would ascribe to the notion that we were created by an intelligent being. We had science before Darwin and we've had science after Darwin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is science more than evolution?

Yes, it is a whole way of life; replete with its own language, its own checks and balances, its own disregard for those persons or countries that are not at the very top of the totem pole, its own administered tests, its own [overworked] error correction system, its own staff, its own uniforms, its own literature, its own religion, its own ethics, its own morality, its own jurisprudence, its own public relations department, its own research and development, its own fund... [skip that one], its own scare tactics,* its own problem resolution, its own cleanup, its own system of entertainment, and even its own [doomsday] clock.

* I always shake my head in disgust whenever a shrewdness of scientists get together and scare the living daylights out of us commoners about something specific (e.g. Y2K), then solve the problem themselves.

I compare it to a person lighting fires, then putting it out himself and looking like a hero.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, it is a whole way of life; replete with its own language, its own checks and balances, its own disregard for those persons or countries that are not at the very top of the totem pole, its own administered tests, its own [overworked] error correction system, its own staff, its own uniforms, its own literature,

Good so far.

its own religion,

Come again?

its own scare tactics,*

* I always shake my head in disgust whenever a shrewdness of scientists get together and scare the living daylights out of us commoners about something specific (e.g. Y2K), then solve the problem themselves.

Y2K? You mean the problem that could well have had serious implications, and so scientists warned people about it? What on Earth is wrong with that?

I compare it to a person lighting fires, then putting it out himself and looking like a hero.[/quote]

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, then let's talk about what we know. Charles Darwin did not formulate the idea of natural selection until the mid-1800's. Many people who lived during and before that time would ascribe to the notion that we were created by an intelligent being. We had science before Darwin and we've had science after Darwin.

This seems peripheral to me. I'd rather have an answer to post #16.

But, I don't think your post changes anything. Whomever you might identify as the first scientist, whether it be Bacon or Aristotle or Anaximander, his appearance is rather recent according to the evolutionary time scale. So, wouldn't it be the case that those who came before with ID ideas were "wrong" and the evolutionary process is selecting those who have the "right" idea, making science an emergent thing resulting from the evolutionary process. In other words, those individuals who have science ideas correlating to the framework of "reality" have an advantage, and are therefore selected. To satisfy sfs we also need to acknowledge that selection is not a purely positivist process, but even with that I think the basic idea remains.

So, it doesn't matter that some in the past may have pursued ID. It was a "bad" mutation, thereby diminishing the probability that those individuals would reproduce (if that's the right wording). I think the original idea stands.