Evolution, Science & Religion (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, June 16, 2012, 19:35 (4330 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: I don't know of anyone who argues a direct line from fungi to fish to humans. -I do: In his critique of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution' -"If you think of it as the product of design, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a disgrace. Helmholz would have had even more cause to send it back than the eye. But, like the eye, it makes perfect sense the moment you forget design and think history instead." (p. 356)-Dawkins then argues that it makes better sense if we evolved from fish, and touching on something akin to Haeckel's discredited embryonic recapitulation theory,1 concludes:-"All that we need to know, to understand the history of our recurrent laryngeal nerve, is that in the fish the vagus nerve has branches that supply the last three of the six gills, and it is natural for them, therefore, to pass behind the appropriate gill arteries. There is nothing recurrent about these branches: they seek out their end organs, the gills, by the most direct and logical route.-
>DHW: But I don't agree that this is an overlap area between science and religion. Exploring those mechanisms is the province of science. The moment a scientist begins to speculate on their origins, on purpose or lack of purpose, design or chance, he leaves the realm of science and enters that of philosophy (of which I would regard religion as a branch). ... science can (try to) explain the material workings of the universe WITHOUT delving into whys and wherefores. Those are not its province.Therefore, in my view, science by its very nature is restricted by the material bounds of observation, whereas much of religion is not and, again by its very nature, cannot be. Gods are not observable and testable. And so I would say that philosophy (including religion) should not run counter to science, but science has to be independent of philosophy.
> 
> TONY (to David): You criticize the bible for being a human construct, but don't even acknowledge that science is exactly the same?
> 
> I don't think it is exactly the same. While I share all your reservations about the "truths" that may emerge from science, its observations and experiments within the material world do provide many facts that are objectively testable and authenticated. Technology time and again proves the accuracy of its findings. You and I share a belief that the Earth goes round the sun, is more than 6000 years old, and that there are such things as radio signals and electricity. The bible is full of wonderful stories, wise insights into human conduct, and even some useful moral codes, but I really don't know why anyone should bother to consult it over matters of science. The only possible reason for doing so, it seems to me, is when religious people want to believe that the bible is the word of God and therefore either try to reconcile its (often vague) pronouncements with the findings of science, or in some cases simply refuse to accept the latter. (That of course is their prerogative. I'm only pointing out that what you call the "imperfect data sets and imperfect interpretations of them" are of a very different nature.)-This is a very Western approach to the subject. To understand something implies more than just knowledge of its constituent parts (what/how), it also implies understanding the who, why, and what for, as well as it's place in existence. It implies that knowledge at every level. Epigenetics is sure fire proof that we can not separate form, function, and purpose. Medicine has demonstrated repeatedly that we can not separate them. To understand a thing means to know its every facet. -What the Western mind has done is to separate things. We separate form from function, function from impact, impact from purpose, purpose from meaning. To each of these we give a different school of thought. We separate our knowledge and experience of a thing to the point were it becomes lost in the minutia. -That is why, in my opinion, there must be overlap and agreement. There must be unity between the various schools of thought, or, by definition, one of them is wrong. If a meaning can not be found for the purpose of an impact that follows from the function of something that is defined by its form, then there is a breakdown somewhere in the system. Moreover, that is an iterative process! It will happen again and again at successively higher or lower levels of examination.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.