It is just evolution

[paarsurrey]

Science does no miracles and science does not claim to have done any. The scientific progress is just a part of evolution of man. No credit deserves to be given to the philosophers, mathematicians and or to the scientists in this regard.
Does one agree to it?

The participants in this discussion:
If they belong to a revealed religion,

• They should quote from the revealed scripture for their claim and reason and then elaborate their viewpoint.

Those who fall back on science for support, they should quote for their relative claims and reasons from:

• A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• From a text book of science
• Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

and then elaborate their viewpoint. This is for ease of comparison.
Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

 

[philbo]

er.. wut?

Whether science does "miracles" depends on your definition of a miracle: things that have been called "miraculous" innumerable times over the years are being done by science (especially medical science) every day; however, by other uses of the word what science allows us to do is by definition not miraculous.
To say scientific progress is "just part of the evolution of man" is an odd sort of statement, not entirely sure what it's supposed to mean in this context.
Of course we need to give credit to the people who discover useful rules about the way our environment functions. It's not like increasing knowledge happens by itself.

 

[viole]

Science does no miracles and science does not claim to have done any. The scientific progress is just a part of evolution of man. No credit deserves to be given to the philosophers, mathematicians and or to the scientists in this regard.
Does one agree to it?

The participants in this discussion:
If they belong to a revealed religion,

• They should quote from the revealed scripture for their claim and reason and then elaborate their viewpoint.

Those who fall back on science for support, they should quote for their relative claims and reasons from:

• A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• From a text book of science
• Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

and then elaborate their viewpoint. This is for ease of comparison.
Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

That no credit is deserved by scientists, etc. is a non sequitur. Evolution does not prevent to give credit to whomever we want, obviously.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

Science does no miracles and science does not claim to have done any. The scientific progress is just a part of evolution of man. No credit deserves to be given to the philosophers, mathematicians and or to the scientists in this regard.
Does one agree to it?

Since we're all part of nature and we can give credit to nature for it to evolve, then the philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists who are part of nature deserve credit for being the ones to have evolved by nature to discover these things of nature. Just as we would give credit to a Earth for giving us the gravity we need to stay on it.

 

[Quintessence]

Science does no miracles...

How are you defining "miracle?"

...and science does not claim to have done any.

Science is not some unified body of anything to be making any such claims of the sort one way or another in the first place. Haven't we been over that before? Now, individual scientists can and do make comparisons between their work and miracles, such as Nobel-prize winners:

Science consistently produces a new crop of miraculous truths and dazzling devices every year.

The scientific progress is just a part of evolution of man. No credit deserves to be given to the philosophers, mathematicians and or to the scientists in this regard.

Well, if we're going to go to this level of ridiculous, we should extend that to all human endeavors. But perhaps, in some respects, not so ridiculous. I often feel there is much too much fixation on "credit" and "ownership" of things than their ought to be, and such is detrimental for the love of the journey. Chest-beating posturing is so... urgh.

Those who fall back on science for support, they should quote for their relative claims and reasons from:

• A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• From a text book of science
• Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

You know, when you ask this, you really need to at least make that requirement relevant for your topic of discussion. You're dealing with issues pertaining to the philosophy of science, not the sciences proper. The same has been the case of the other threads you've made with this unreasonable and impossible demand.

 

[Laika]

Science does no miracles and science does not claim to have done any. The scientific progress is just a part of evolution of man. No credit deserves to be given to the philosophers, mathematicians and or to the scientists in this regard.
Does one agree to it?

amazingly, I sort of agree with this, but thats because I think of scientific knowledge as the work, achievement and property of all mankind. In very general economic terms, without the work of many people providing the kind of resources to feed and educate these scientists, etc, their discoveries would not be possible. more specifically, scientists drew on others work or relied on others to make their discoveries. it is sort of an illusion that a singe person 'magically' came up an idea and tends to reflect notions of intellectual property rather than the process of sharing ideas that is part of science.

e.g. the fact that darwin is credited with evolution ignores the contribution of other scientists and thinkers in this process such as Alfred Russell Wallace. Issac Newton is credited with major breakthroughts with developing Calculus, but there is a controversey over whether Gottfreid Leibniz got there first. Not sure about Einstein, but it was the Engish Physist Arthur Eddignton who actually demonstrated the validity of the general theory of relativity.

 

[LuisDantas]

Science does no miracles and science does not claim to have done any. The scientific progress is just a part of evolution of man. No credit deserves to be given to the philosophers, mathematicians and or to the scientists in this regard.
Does one agree to it?

No, I don't agree with what you are saying. Except that science does indeed have no connection to miracles, that is.

The participants in this discussion:
If they belong to a revealed religion,

• They should quote from the revealed scripture for their claim and reason and then elaborate their viewpoint.

If I may ask, their claim and reason about what matter?

Those who fall back on science for support, they should quote for their relative claims and reasons from:

Which kind of support?

• A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• From a text book of science
• Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

About which subject matter?

 

[philbo]

amazingly, I sort of agree with this, but thats because I think of scientific knowledge as the work, achievement and property of all mankind. In very general economic terms, without the work of many people providing the kind of resources to feed and educate these scientists, etc, their discoveries would not be possible. more specifically, scientists drew on others work or relied on others to make their discoveries. it is sort of an illusion that a singe person 'magically' came up an idea and tends to reflect notions of intellectual property rather than the process of sharing ideas that is part of science.

e.g. the fact that darwin is credited with evolution ignores the contribution of other scientists and thinkers in this process such as Alfred Russell Wallace. Issac Newton is credited with major breakthroughts with developing Calculus, but there is a controversey over whether Gottfreid Leibniz got there first. Not sure about Einstein, but it was the Engish Physist Arthur Eddignton who actually demonstrated the validity of the general theory of relativity.

There's a "yes, but..." in all that: individual people may have "stood on the shoulders of giants" to make their discoveries, but the credit is due to the "mathematicians, philosophers and scientists" who did the thinking.. many people are involved, true; but it's not the overwhelming majority of humanity. Most people provide precisely zilch when it comes to progressing knowledge.

 

[Parsimony]

Science does no miracles and science does not claim to have done any. The scientific progress is just a part of evolution of man. No credit deserves to be given to the philosophers, mathematicians and or to the scientists in this regard.

What do any of these three sentences have to do with each other at all? Evolution may have given us a brain that allowed for scientific progress, but it most certainly didn't fill our brains with knowledge of nuclear fusion, atoms, lasers, etc. We had to figure those things out for ourselves.

 

[Laika]

There's a "yes, but..." in all that: individual people may have "stood on the shoulders of giants" to make their discoveries, but the credit is due to the "mathematicians, philosophers and scientists" who did the thinking.. many people are involved, true; but it's not the overwhelming majority of humanity. Most people provide precisely zilch when it comes to progressing knowledge.

whilst mathematicians, philosophers and scientists did the thinking, they did not think in isolation. Science the result of our social organisation and it would not be possible to have either science or culture without the majority of people actually producing the resources that free scientists etc, from manual labour to pursue science. Also, science has only been institutionalised for the 20th century (maybe the latter half of the 19th as well) so many 'scientists' were just people with money who had time on their hands and were curious rather than professionals. I tend to support the notion of science as an democratic method by which anyone can obtain the truth rather than something that belongs solely to institutions; this is not the same as saying it is better, but certianly that scence is not an intellectual authority endowed to institutions, but to a method of obtaining the truth which potentially anyone can use.

 

[psychoslice]

If any of science of today was shown to the ignorant back in Jesus' day, it would have been a miracle to them, much better than anything Jesus could do.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I find the OP to contain some very odd statements.

Science does no miracles and science does not claim to have done any.

This is a given, as miracles are usually defined as the workings of deities. Science is not a deity

The scientific progress is just a part of evolution of man.

Depends on how you are defining "evolution". Scientific progress has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.

No credit deserves to be given to the philosophers, mathematicians and or to the scientists in this regard.

Obtaining knowledge is not a part of biological evolution, neither is obtaining knowledge inevitable. For this reason, of course credit is due to those who increased mankind's knowledge.

 

[Kirran]

Before going any further, I think we should better ascertain what the OP actually wants to discuss or argue here.

 

[paarsurrey]

That no credit is deserved by scientists, etc. is a non sequitur. Evolution does not prevent to give credit to whomever we want, obviously.
Ciao
- viole

Evolution does require to give credit to a person either
Regards

 

[Kirran]

The process of evolution certainly does not need to be credited to a person.

But acceptance of evolution as having occurred by no means prevents us giving credit to those who have done research into its mechanisms for having done so.

These are basically entirely separate areas.

 

[Ouroboros]

Evolution does require to give credit to a person either
Regards

Evolution doesn't credit or discredit anyone. Evolution is a process. It doesn't think or require things of people in any shape or form. Evolution is only one out of many different natural processes. Gravity, electromagnetism, explosions, heat exchange, and so on are not "evolution", even though they're still natural processes. Evolution is only the process that develops groups with biological traits.

 

[outhouse]

No credit deserves to be given to the philosophers, mathematicians and or to the scientists in this regard.

Then who deserves the credit for advancing human knowledge? Not mythology and that is factual.

If they belong to a revealed religion,

Stop, do not pass go, do not get out of jail free.

Provide credible sources there is such a thing as a revealed religion, and not just plagiarized traditions rewritten for a different culture

They should quote from the revealed scripture for their claim and reason and then elaborate their viewpoint.

Mythology does not advance science, nor does religion in any way.

 

[paarsurrey]

amazingly, I sort of agree with this, but thats because I think of scientific knowledge as the work, achievement and property of all mankind. In very general economic terms, without the work of many people providing the kind of resources to feed and educate these scientists, etc, their discoveries would not be possible. more specifically, scientists drew on others work or relied on others to make their discoveries. it is sort of an illusion that a singe person 'magically' came up an idea and tends to reflect notions of intellectual property rather than the process of sharing ideas that is part of science.

e.g. the fact that darwin is credited with evolution ignores the contribution of other scientists and thinkers in this process such as Alfred Russell Wallace. Issac Newton is credited with major breakthroughts with developing Calculus, but there is a controversey over whether Gottfreid Leibniz got there first. Not sure about Einstein, but it was the Engish Physist Arthur Eddignton who actually demonstrated the validity of the general theory of relativity.

That is true.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Since we're all part of nature and we can give credit to nature for it to evolve, then the philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists who are part of nature deserve credit for being the ones to have evolved by nature to discover these things of nature. Just as we would give credit to a Earth for giving us the gravity we need to stay on it.

The scientists decipher rules/principles/processes just that what already exists in deaf and dumb nature and the universe/s are working on them without scientists and science, though the universe/s know no language/mathematics/science.
Only that is found out which is the requirement of the hour or need of the human curiosity, if there would have not been a particular scientist, there would have been others who would have discovered the same.
The real credit belongs to the Being who made nature and universe/s to exist under the rules/principles/processes inherent in them, if one does not give credit to that Being, then one should not morally give credit to anybody and or anything else.
Regards

 

[Ouroboros]

The scientists decipher rules/principles/processes just that what already exists in deaf and dumb nature and the universe/s are working on them without scientists and science, though the universe/s know no language/mathematics/science.
Only that is found out which is the requirement of the hour or need of the human curiosity, if there would have not been a particular scientist, there would have been others who would have discovered the same.
The real credit belongs to the Being who made nature and universe/s to exist under the rules/principles/processes inherent in them, if one does not give credit to that Being, then one should not morally give credit to anybody and or anything else.
Regards

So then you're saying that you don't deserve any credit for your post there either.

A person who finds out how the "Creator" created things do deserve some credit for having made the find, just as you deserve the credit for having made your post above. Giving credit isn't as glorified as you seem to think it is. To give credit is to recognize who did what. A scientist discovering how nature works (according to the Creator's design) still deserve credit for what their work.

Besides, nothing you said above relates to evolution. So I don't understand why evolution have anything to do with scientists deserving credit for discoveries or not.