1. As I've explained several times, Newton's work has been confirmed repeatedly by people with many different worldviews. Regardless of how important he thought his worldview was to his work, the same results can be obtained without reference to any specific worldview.
2. Scientists follow the evidence. They don't avoid anything that might challenge their worldview. Nobel Prizes are awarded for work that challenges the status quo.
3. Exactly. The problem is that you have creationists with no expertise in biology claiming to "refute" the experts in the field. When you get on an airplane, do you march up to the cockpit and tell the pilot he's flying all wrong? Or do you acknowledge his expertise? Would you refuse to fly with a pilot whose worldview was different from yours? Or would you understand that his worldview doesn't effect his ability to fly?
4. I don't know what agreed point you're refering to. I certainly wouldn't agree that evolutionary assumptions are not scientific.
5. Darwin's work definitely was the foundation of modern biology. At least, that's what the biologists tell me.
6. But my point was that letting go of the religious paradigm was what allowed an explosion of scientific discovery.
7. That's what I've been saying. The important thing in science is the verification. A Christian proposes a hypothesis and a Muslim verifies it. An atheist proposes a hypothesis and a Christian verifies it.
8. You do know that Popper accepted evolution, don't you?
1. That has no relevance to my point, you were claiming that Newton was supporting your claims when I showed you that his very ideology of leaning about God via science runs contrary to your claims here. Just admit that you were trying an argument from authority by name dropping, too bad it didn't work.
2. Really.... Then why are these contradictions I have posted before are routinely ignored by you?.... You are proof of the evolutionary dodging tactics. The same can be said for my lecturers, since when I asked them tough questions I'd normally get a run around response. You have to admit that I am correct in claiming that an evolutionist would never go research evidence against their own (heartfelt) position / worldview.
3. Who are these people, I am certainly not one since I am studying Biotechnology. Hence your claim here only seeks to throw mud at people, not even the people you are debating here, therefore it has no relevance.
4. Was wondering when you'd try and backpedal out of this.
Post #23 I said"Can you see here that the evolutionary assumption, (assume "evolution did it"), puts it in the same realm of logic as your fairy analogy."
You responded in post #24 with"I haven't said that it was different."
Meaning that you agree they are the same. Thus you agreed with my initial statement, in that assuming evolution is true is the same logic as your fairy analogy.
So you are claiming that evolutionary assumptions are scientific? On what basis are they scientific?
and why are other assumptions ie: assume God exists, are not scientific assumptions. (Hint: read my signature.... scientific assumption is an oxymoron..... since science deals with observable facts and assumptions do not deal with facts rather they are merely perceptions of reality on what we perceive to be facts.
5. That is what they say, yet as I explained logically they are wrong since evolution can only impact on what it influences.... the only thing it influences is the nomenclature and classification of organisms, thus leading to ecology. ANything outside of this has had no influence from evolution, and people who claim that it does are merely indoctrinated in the belief that it is.... (Believe me, at university I've had evolution shoved down my throat worse than attending any church service).
A good test of my claim would be.... Try and envisage what would happen if there was no evolution.... There would still be Biology since Biology existed before evolution.. Chemistry would be unchanged, Physics unchanged, Medicine unchanged, Engineering unchanged. The only things that would change are
i) classification of organisms would exist but not have its underlying premise of evolution
ii) Assumption-based pseudoscience would not have a foot in the door, since evolutionary assumption science doesn't exist
The 2nd point ensures that science would benefit greatly if evolution never existed, the fact that you yourself advocates evolutionary assumptions as science proves my point here. Assumptions are not science. Period.
However I would suggest reading my entire post since you haven't bothered to claim on the supporting argument I made.... (avoiding the arguments is not a good "tactic" and is more evidence of the evolutionist-dodging technique). I actually repeated the same sentiment above however here is a quote of what you missed."You do realise that science is built on the works of their predecessors. The only things that Darwin and evolution has a hand in affecting is ecology and the identification / classification of animals and plants, (which are all arbitrary anyway). Claiming that Darwin somehow lead to greater scientific advancement really is a silly concept when you consider the nature of his model and what it can actually affect."
6. Care to have evidence of this "explosion"... considering the detriment of evolution allowing assumption-"science" to be viewed as actual science would defy your claim here.
7. And? What is your point?
8. Yet another failed attempt at an argument from authority by name dropping... Karl Popper was critical of evolution on the basis of its lack of empirical evidence and methods to verify its claims."The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection … turns out … to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power … of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems."
From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica
, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355
So Karl Popper explains that evolution by natural selection is a tautology and is also metaphysical in scope.