Why 'Science' tries to separate the beginning from Evolution!

[Belacqua]

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.
 

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.

[Fake Messiah]

[The Grand Nudger]

Science separates The Beginning™ from evolution because life is a sea change for this rock.

[Anomalocaris]

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.
 

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.

Ah, the disingenuous wind bag with the affected knowing air again.

[JohnMBauer]

In science we separate the beginning from the theory of evolution for the same reason we separate Physical chemistry, organic chemistry and quantum chemistry from each Other - so we can specialize and more quickly further deeper understanding of different facets of the very same underlying natural phenomenons. 

There may be some truth to that, but I think there is a much simpler answer. I would say that we separate "the beginning" from the theory of evolution because the latter is about the origin of species—in other words, the theory of evolution presupposes life. The origin of life is one thing, the origin of species is another. Regardless of how life originated, it has nevertheless evolved.

Can you truly be so profoundly ignorant that you would think your stridently moronic rhetorical question can possibly solicit anything but uproarious laughter?

I don't agree that the question is somehow moronic, nor that it's rhetorical. But, hey, enjoy your laughter.

If so, then for your own good Shut the fuck up, trash can your bible, and get a real education.

For my own good? Is there some kind of problem with asking questions and exploring answers?

Like all morons totally blinded by the Bible, you Use such elements of what you conceive to be science that you imagine you’ve graspEd the very same way any totally blind man uses a lamp post, for support, not illumination.

Yeah? And where exactly have I done that? Where have I used poorly conceived science for support rather than illumination?

---

Evolution is about one thing changing into another thing. 

Broadly speaking, yes. But notice that I said "the theory of evolution," which I assumed people would understand as that specific theory formerly understood as Darwinian. So I think we're on the same page as long as the changing "thing" you talked about is biological species.

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. 

If we stand back far enough, sure. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between "yellow" (Australopithecus afarensis) and "green" (Homo sapiens). But the closer you look at human evolution, the harder it is to tell. Is that one a yellowish-green or a greenish-yellow? At some point discerning the difference becomes nearly impossible. What I mean by this illustration is that I don't think there was "first" human being, so to speak, a specific point where we could say, "That population, right there, that's when human beings began." That would be my answer, at least, if someone asked me that question. Thoughts?

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.

I'll learn pretty quickly who's oblivious to reason and evidence. Until then, I'm going to step in it from time to time.

Cheers, mate.

[The Grand Nudger]

Have you considered what it means to acknowledge that life has done it's thing without any god's interference?

Gods are real, but things still act as if they weren't.

[JohnMBauer]

Have you considered what it means to acknowledge that life has done it's thing without any god's interference?

What is meant by this notion that God "interferes"? It's possible that I don't even accept the premise—especially given your second sentence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sun shines down and plants grow. There's our baseline. Above aside and in concert with that..is whatever gods explicitly do.

What do gods do, anyway? Do they make flowers red, or keep stems beefy?

[JohnMBauer]

Sun shines down and plants grow.  There's our baseline.  Above aside and in concert with that..is whatever gods explicitly do.

So, if I understand you correctly, what you're asking me is whether I acknowledge that the natural world operates independent of God. In response I would say that this proposition (1) is not a scientific one, and (2) is in dire need of evidence or valid justification. Does the natural world indeed operate independent of God? I can't acknowledge that it does if I haven't been given any good reason to do so.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

It doesn't matter how many times you trot out that list . The fact some scientists happen to have been religious does not mean science and religion are not in opposition . This is a fallacy you keep repeating