RE: Why 'Science' tries to separate the beginning from Evolution!
May 23, 2020 at 11:54 pm
(This post was last modified: May 23, 2020 at 11:54 pm by Belacqua.)
(May 23, 2020 at 11:00 pm)JohnMBauer Wrote: Why in science do we separate "the beginning" from the theory of evolution?
I haven't read the thread prior to this, but if it's now a serious question, I'll make a stab at the answer.
Evolution is about one thing changing into another thing.
If we specify a particular thing, then it makes sense to talk about a beginning in terms of evolution. So, if the question is "when did human beings begin?", then once we have a workable definition of "human being" we can talk about how they evolved. How humans branched off from non-humans.
Likewise in things that aren't biological evolution. We can talk about, for example, modern bourgeois morality evolving from earlier views. It's not Darwin, but it is change over time.
If, on the other hand, we're talking about the beginning of everything, then evolution isn't applicable. Simply because there was nothing to change into the next thing. That leaves us with different, non-evolution questions, like "was there ever really a time when there was nothing?" "Can something come from nothing?" etc.
Quote:(May 3, 2020 at 4:26 am)Nomad Wrote: Religions don't like science because ...
False. Even if you modify that to say, "Religious people don't like science," it would still be false.
For many of the regular posters on this forum, the inherent opposition of religion to science is part of their credo. It doesn't matter how many facts from history you post to show otherwise, they just know it's true.
