= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Ghazzali comments on The Wonder of Evolution - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (80)
I'd be curious where you can point to these being used as evidence for evolution. You won't see them in any major biology textbook. Note that even if they are used that way that doesn't become a problem with evolution by itself.
This statement is probably true. But why is it true? It doesn't have anything to do with evolution as an issue and primarily has to do with the fact that most classical religions have creation stories and other aspects which make evolution uncomfortable for them, and people who are religious form a substantial overlap with people who make claims about non-physical or non-material existence. Similar remarks apply to your other bits. These are people who are unhappy with evolution not because of evidence but because it goes against their theological predilections.
Biology textbooks reflect the belief that "The world is purely physical/material in nature" by not even entertaining the possibility that there could be a super natural cause for anything. Any natural activity is assumed to have a physical/material cause. This is philosophy, so it may not be physically written out that way in the biology textbooks, but everything in the textbooks points to this major world assumption.
Same with the issue of free will. Any act by a species is seen in a way that needs to be explained in chemical/biological/mechanical manner. There is no room for this mysterious/other-worldly notion called free will.
Same with the idea that there is no real purpose or meaning to the universe.
As for this statement:
If for example a person does not accept that all of existence is physical in nature, then he is more likely to question the 'evidence' of evolution.
It is not necessarily true because of specific theological beliefs only. Lets say a person has absolutely no theological beliefs from any religion, but he does not automatically assume that all of existences is physical/mechanical. That person, because of this world view by itself, now all of a sudden has a higher chance of rejecting evolution than someone who only believes in a physical/mechanical world view.
The real debate is on the level of philosophy, not science. That is because ones science is driven by his philosophical interpretations....whether he realizes it or not.