Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?



Mr. Stonjek:

The name "Michael Ruse" rang a faint bell but I did not know who he
was. I briefly looked him up and what I discovered in a brief review is
Mr. Ruse's belief in design in Darwinian evolution. Yes, I'm aware of
the philosophy of science. As a matter of fact I took something of a
course on it in philosophy. It was mostly metaphysics and dealt with
subjects like evil, immortality, teleology and many other interesting
subjects.

You write, "Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
A friend of mine claims that: "Michael Ruse has
written a book as well as published many articles on the issue. Ruse
demonstrates that there is no
necessary conflict between Christianity and evolutionism as you assert.
John
Maynard Smith, described in his obituary as 'the greatest evolutionary
biologist since Darwin', was a devout Christian."

I would state "individually" there is no necessary conflict between
Christianity and evolutionism. What I mean by that is an individual can
be a renowned evolutionist and at the same time be a devout Christian
although I would preface that the chances of that today have decreased.

Collectively, Christianity represents a major impediment to the ideas
of Darwinian evolution. What Mr. Ruse calls design is merely natural
selection and amazing as this process is its not flawless. Many species
have gone extinct because of natural selection. Particularly when a
species can no longer adapt fast enough to changes in its environment.

I submit this is the case with Homo Sapiens. Technology and science has
tremendously advanced in the last two hundred years but biologically
humans haven't been able to keep up with these changes. As a result we
are threatened by extinction from ourselves. The main culprit goes
under the umbrella term aggression which was useful in caveman times
when we faced non-human predators but today is unnecessary in its
current DNA configuration. As a result in many places around the world
"we" are killing each other left and right and even more dangerously
the high technology exists to wipe out millions of humans in a short
period of time. We can not wait up for Darwinian evolution to make us
better natured but unfortunately it will take hundreds if not a
thousand years maybe to have the means, control and power to possibly
effect widespread changes in human DNA codes. For the rest of our lives
and way beyond things will get much worse. So humans are in a stage of
turbulent transition.

Where I personally think the philosophy of science is highly relevant
is for more scientists to understand these things rather than resisting
them.They need to totally understand that Darwinian evolution can't be
allowed to continue totally unfettered or it will result in the
extinction of the human species. Quite frankly, I think there is a
50-50 chance this may occur. Scientists need to realize they truly
symbolize the only hope for saving the human species, not politicians.

However, nothing comes free. Through gradual advances in genomics,
proteomics, genetic engineering, genetic studies on aggression, etc.,
etc., one must realize the possibility of another species created and
that Homo Sapiens will ultimately die out as the Homo Erectus did,
Neanderthal Man, and many others. The critical difference here is where
these ancient Hominids became extinct as a result of Darwinian
evolution Homo Sapiens will be the first "man-made" evolutionary
transition to a new species. Ironically Homo Sapien scientists will
very gradually and incrementally (piecemeal) will open the doors to the
possibility of germline genetic engineering of humans. This will likely
be done in some cases as a result of self aggrandizement, profit, etc.

So I definitely thing more research should be done and more funding
appropriated to certain areas of scientific research. The research
should be reviewed and authorized but if it is stymied due to
questionable moral or political reasons than scientists should proceed
on their own.

Nature is not perfect. Far from it. Man is a part of nature but we
increasingly are having the ability to not only understand nature a
little bit better but also being capable of changing it. Despite the
risks the possible benefits far outweigh the negatives.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Naturalistic Fallacy
    ... They are a part of Darwinian evolution. ... It is interesting to note that sometimes what we humans prefer to call the ... Few spots remain on earth that are ... ESCAPING each species' needing SOME kind of externality complex if it is to ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Couple questions for evolution experts
    ... >> process of evolution was occuring, did the human female birth canal ... If it were beneficial for the survival of the species, ... Why is it such a guessing game with humans? ... many atheists agree with those religious persons that evolution and religion are not alternatives. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Temporal Learning
    ... >> be born with pre-wired knowledge about one's environment. ... I think that humans inherit of a lot less knowledge than they learn ... You can believe in the magic of evolution all you ... species to emerge, there must be a lot of opportunities for mutations. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... how humans came to be and how we fit in the universe"... ... human prehistory and the origin of species does not mean that those ... Macro) evolution has been tested, ... logical that humans genetics would also most closely match primates. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • POTM: Re: Commentary: Thoughts on atheistic evolution and morality
    ... Macroevolution refers to one species changing into a completely ... but not "completely different," what sort of evolution would that be? ... If we humans are animals like any other - only more evolved - there ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast