homunculus writes:
First, understand that most people, myself, no matter how regular and "laymen", view evolution as the union of known theoretical principles (abiogenesis, big bang, etc.).
Are you asserting that you (yourself) are "most people"? I think that's a mistake. Most people I know are able to understand that astronomy, biology, geology, etc, are different branches of science, and that the term "evolution", as a scientific theory, applies only in biology.
... we will have to create a name to suggest that the package deal is a big pile.
I think the the name you are looking for here is simply "science" -- no need to create a new term. The thing that you are disputing and having trouble with is not just evolution, which is part of science; you seem to be having trouble with all science.
Not only does Evolution systematically outlaw the supernatural (which is the agenda, I assume), but it presumes strict naturalistic conjoining factors...
You see, that is where you should use the word "science" instead of "evolution". It is true that science cannot accept, posit or build theories on the supernatural, because the supernatural is, by definition, unobservable, impossible to prove by means of research or experimentation, and ultimately subjective rather than objective. If two different people decide to assign different supernatural explanations for something (e.g. why some children die of cancer, or why some women die in child birth), there will never be any sound basis for showing that either explanation is better than the other one.
By insisting on purely natural explanations for things, based on observable evidence and reasonable assumptions about the continuity and consistency of physical phenomena (such as rates of radioactive decay for various elements, rates of tectonic movement and sedimentation, rates of genetic mutation, the speed of light, etc), it is possible, and common practice, to compare two different explanations for something, by figuring out how they would make different predictions about future observations, and then testing those predictions to see which ones turn out to be right. The explanation that yields wrong predictions is discarded.
Scientific explanations for why some children die of cancer, or why some women die in child birth, are still incomplete, but as more observations are made, more hypothetical causes are tested and more is learned, these explanations improve -- and as they improve, there can be a real reduction in the number of childhood cancers and child birth fatalities.
Do you want to assert that one or another supernatural explanation for such things can help to reduce their frequency of occurrence?
(One more point on the notion of "reasonable assumptions about the continuity and consistency of physical phenomena": these phenomena are measured repeatedly with ever increasing accuracy and closer attention to factors that might skew or distort the measurements, as well as factors that cause variation in the phenomena, such as environmental conditions that affect the presence or absence of particular radioactive elements in the atmosphere. The "assumptions of continuity" are well-founded, having been based on quantities of observations that establish a measurable degree of reliability.)
So do yourself a favor when discussing your point of view on this forum: admit that the thing you are arguing against is science in general, not just evolution.
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2
