Is science being divided?

[QuantumT]

Are we currently witnessing science being divided in two directions?

In the one: Old school physicists, who insists on physicalism/materialism, and the traditional approach that derives from Newton, Darwin and Einstein.

In the other: a more modern information approach, deriving from Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger.

I have noticed the first group mocking the latter alot. Especially among amateur scientists.

The real ones just say: Shut up and calculate. They seem to avoid interpreting "the wave collapse" at any cost.
If they don't avoid it, they find speculative explanations that confuse the audience so much, that they forget the essence of the issue itself.

Is the information approach a fad, a new branch or the future of science?

[Averroes]

In the one: Old school physicists, who insists on physicalism/materialism, and the traditional approach that derives from Newton, Darwin and Einstein.

Darwinism is not science but science fiction.

[QuantumT]

Darwinism is not science but science fiction.

It's not Darwin that is fiction, it's your beliefs.

[Averroes]

Darwinism is not science but science fiction.

It's not Darwin that is fiction, it's your beliefs.

We have here opposing views. I propose to anyone interested that we discuss it in an intelligent, civilized and scientific way, so that we can resolve this conflict between human beings who like to philosophize.
So my position is that Darwinism is not scientific. Why I think like this? Because there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsover to support the claims of Darwinism. Darwinism claims that all the adaptive structures in nature, all the organisms which have existed throughout history were generated by the accumulation of entirely undirected mutation. There is absolutely no evidence for the claims of Darwinism. If someone can provide me the slightest piece of evidence for Darwinism, then I am all ears. If anyone can prove to me from a scientific point of view the claims of Darwinism, I will have no choice but to accept it. I have been discussing this for years with those who believe in this theory, and all without any exception runs away from the discussion after they are asked for the scientific evidence of their claims. Some are here already, but surely they wont be replying, even if I challenge them!

[A_Seagull]

Darwinism is not science but science fiction.

It's not Darwin that is fiction, it's your beliefs.

There is absolutely no evidence for the claims of Darwinism. If someone can provide me the slightest piece of evidence for Darwinism, then I am all ears. If anyone can prove to me from a scientific point of view the claims of Darwinism, I will have no choice but to accept it.

The fact that you exist is sufficient evidence for Darwinism. I rest my case.

[wtf]

The fact that you exist is sufficient evidence for Darwinism. I rest my case.

I don't follow that argument at all. The fact that I exist is evidence for Darwinism and also evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created me five minutes ago and gave me my (false) memories of my life. Or that God said, "Let there be electromagnetic radiation," and then created Adam and Eve who did a whole lot of begattin' till they got to me."

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point.

[Greta]

Are we currently witnessing science being divided in two directions?

In the one: Old school physicists, who insists on physicalism/materialism, and the traditional approach that derives from Newton, Darwin and Einstein.

In the other: a more modern information approach, deriving from Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger.

I have noticed the first group mocking the latter alot. Especially among amateur scientists.

The real ones just say: Shut up and calculate. They seem to avoid interpreting "the wave collapse" at any cost.
If they don't avoid it, they find speculative explanations that confuse the audience so much, that they forget the essence of the issue itself.

Is the information approach a fad, a new branch or the future of science?

There have always been these divisions. Scientists are both cooperative and competitive - and in a complex way, as expected when dealing with so many extremely bright people. There is a pecking order, as in all fields, though. Still, scientists themselves tend to be far more cooperative and appreciative of each other's abilities than neophytes on the web arguing in their stead.

It's the same as with musicians - the crappy ones tend to criticise famous musicians while the pros more appreciate others' virtues; they achieve in music exactly because they were in it for the love more than the ego strokes.

[Averroes]

It's not Darwin that is fiction, it's your beliefs.

There is absolutely no evidence for the claims of Darwinism. If someone can provide me the slightest piece of evidence for Darwinism, then I am all ears. If anyone can prove to me from a scientific point of view the claims of Darwinism, I will have no choice but to accept it.

The fact that you exist is sufficient evidence for Darwinism. I rest my case.

Thank you A-Seagull for replying. But why rest your case so soon? What is this "hit and run" strategy you are up to? And besides you missed!

Jokes apart now, please let us discuss this in a civilized, intelligent and scientific way. You are saying that my existence is sufficient proof of the existence of Darwinism. How so please? Because the claims of Darwinism are not just about me! Recall I already mentioned the controversial, dogmatic and unscientific claim of Darwinism, I.e. : Darwinism claims that all the adaptive structures in nature, all the organisms which have existed throughout history were generated by the accumulation of entirely undirected mutation. So please my friend A-Seagull, do not indulge in dogmatism and please explain how my existence is scientific proof of Darwinism. Come on you Darwinist, help your friend A-Seagull. Why are you so silent now?! What is the matter with you?? Bring the proofs of your claims!

However, if it was meant to be your opinion on the matter then of course I respect your choice (the law obliges!), even though I do not share it. As you potentially may have shared your belief in Darwinism, it would not be nice and fair if I did not share mine with you! I believe that God, the Almighty created me. And He created the first man our father Prophet Adam and from Adam, He created our mother Eve (peace be upon Adam and Eve).
Some people believe in Darwinism because Darwin said so. I believe in the creation story because all the Prophets of God, the Almighty (peace be upon them) said so. It seems we both have faith, but it is only the subject of our faith which differs.

[A_Seagull]

There is absolutely no evidence for the claims of Darwinism. If someone can provide me the slightest piece of evidence for Darwinism, then I am all ears. If anyone can prove to me from a scientific point of view the claims of Darwinism, I will have no choice but to accept it.

The fact that you exist is sufficient evidence for Darwinism. I rest my case.

Thank you A-Seagull for replying. But why rest your case so soon? What is this "hit and run" strategy you are up to? And besides you missed!

Jokes apart now, please let us discuss this in a civilized, intelligent and scientific way. You are saying that my existence is sufficient proof of the existence of Darwinism. How so please? Because the claims of Darwinism are not just about me! Recall I already mentioned the controversial, dogmatic and unscientific claim of Darwinism, I.e. : Darwinism claims that all the adaptive structures in nature, all the organisms which have existed throughout history were generated by the accumulation of entirely undirected mutation. So please my friend A-Seagull, do not indulge in dogmatism and please explain how my existence is scientific proof of Darwinism. Come on you Darwinist, help your friend A-Seagull. Why are you so silent now?! What is the matter with you?? Bring the proofs of your claims!

However, if it was meant to be your opinion on the matter then of course I respect your choice (the law obliges!), even though I do not share it. As you potentially may have shared your belief in Darwinism, it would not be nice and fair if I did not share mine with you! I believe that God, the Almighty created me. And He created the first man our father Prophet Adam and from Adam, He created our mother Eve (peace be upon Adam and Eve).
Some people believe in Darwinism because Darwin said so. I believe in the creation story because all the Prophets of God, the Almighty (peace be upon them) said so. It seems we both have faith, but it is only the subject of our faith which differs.

The evidence is that you exist. I'm glad we can agree on that.

My inferred argument, which was admittedly implied rather than overt, is that there is no explanation for how you came into existence except through some form of Darwinian type evolution.

I do not take any note of what other people say, whether they be Evolutionists or creationists, except to consider to explore their suggestions and arguments.

AS you have stated, creationism is based primarily on hearsay and faith, and without supplementary evidence I have no choice but to reject it as non-real and based on nothing more than fantasy and propaganda. In other words, creationism requires magic, and I don't believe in magic. The only purveyors of 'magic' in the modern world are charlatans.

That leaves evolution as the only alternative.. and there is so much evidence for that that I have no wish to debate the issue with someone who persists in denying the evidence. Or to put it another way there is no evidence whether in the modern world of animal, plant and microbial life, nor in the fossil records that constitutes any evidence opposed to evolution. And on top of that the processes of evolution are so logical and natural that no further explanation is required.

[Greta]

Nor is it worth debating with flat Earthers or Moon landing conspiracy theorists.

Once a person shows that they do not accept volumes of evidence then there is no useful dialogue possible.

It also has nothing to do with the thread topic - which is about scientists, not web heroes.

[Averroes]

The evidence is that you exist. I'm glad we can agree on that.

Of course we can agree that I exist my friend A_Seagull! My existence for me self-evidently prove itself!
But how come you know that I exist??? That is a problem for you, for you have no empirical evidence of my existence! Or do you?

My inferred argument, which was admittedly implied rather than overt, is that there is no explanation for how you came into existence except through some form of Darwinian type evolution.

I am glad to now learn that there was in fact an argument behind what I had labelled as 'hit and run' philosophy! So now you are claiming that my existence is only possible through "some form of Darwinian type of evolution." But the latter claim of yours is just a claim, which you are in fact restating! Respectfully, I already know what Darwinism and Darwinists claim, there is truely no reason for you to state the claim again. But anyway if you feel you need to then it is ok with me. But I am more interested in the scientific evidence which backs these claims. If you have that then as I said in my first post here, 'I am all ears."

I do not take any note of what other people say, whether they be Evolutionists or creationists, except to consider to explore their suggestions and arguments.

Well, I am rather intrigued by that statement of yours, for I am thinking to myself what besides suggestions and arguments of other people on a philosophy forum is there to attract one's attention?! It seems to me that 'suggestions and arguments' are exhaustive of the available options of posters on a philosophy forum! Which means that whatever a poster might write will necessarily either be a suggestion or an argument in his/her point of view! A suggestion is the expression of an opinion!

AS you have stated, creationism is based primarily on hearsay and faith, and without supplementary evidence I have no choice but to reject it as non-real

We can discuss the evidence of creationism at anytime you want my friend. But I think this thread is not the place. Dont you think so? If you are really interested in that and want to have a conversation with me, I can invite you to my forum and we can discuss it on an appropriate thread if here it would not be possible. There is no need to worry, you are in safe hands with me! http://philosophyforum.aba.ae/ It's up to your decision, whatever you choose is fine with me!

That leaves evolution as the only alternative..

Since we can assess creationism whenever you want my friend A-Seagull, so now that leaves evolution as the only alternative to be assessed and analysed in a scientific, rational and civilized manner. If we agree on that, let us proceed.

and there is so much evidence for that that I have no wish to debate the issue with someone who persists in denying the evidence.

I am so glad you are informing me that there is 'so much evidence!' I do not know of any evidence whatsoever for the claims of Darwinism. I do not deny any evidence, the scientists themselves say there is no evidence for the claims of Darwinism! I would really have appreciated that we go through what you alleged to be evidence for Darwinism one by one and take the time to go through the references as should be expected of someone in science and in philosophy. But alas, it seems that you are again indulging in 'hit and run' philosophy. And yet again you missed!
_______________________________________

Anyone who is interested in carrying on with where A_Seagull left is kindly requested to come forward and let us proceed with the presentation of the scientific evidence for Darwinism. Please don't be shy of your beliefs!

Anyway I do not think anyone of you will dare even if I am challenging you in your face! I have repeatedly done this for years with many members on this forum but on another forum and each time they backed away and never to be heard of on this topic with me. It seems history is repeating itself unsurprisingly for me though!

This subject is spot on topic besides. It was mentioned in the OP and it is a subject where scientists are no doubt divided. That too we can discuss, for example we could give the names and books of expert biologists who are authorities in their field and yet are divided on the subject of evolution. And they unambigously assert that Darwinism is unfounded. That is perfectly on topic and is to me a very interesting subject. What do you think readers of this post? Do you find this interesting too? Please express yourselves.

[Walker]

This subject is spot on topic besides. It was mentioned in the OP and it is a subject where scientists are no doubt divided. That too we can discuss, for example we could give the names and books of expert biologists who are authorities in their field and yet are divided on the subject of evolution. And they unambigously assert that Darwinism is unfounded. That is perfectly on topic and is to me a very interesting subject. What do you think readers of this post? Do you find this interesting too? Please express yourselves.

Yes, it is spot on, and interesting.

I’d like to hear the evidence supporting Darwinism, and the refutation.

What I’m likely to hear is attempted distraction in the form of assertions that I’m illiterate and uneducated because of what I’d like to hear, and dismissal unless I present proof of why such discussion is spot on, why it is interesting, and why I’d like to hear. The form these assertions is likely to take is, insult.

However, I’m not much interested in continuing distractions of why you should not be requesting proof of Darwinism.

The predictable continuance of the discussion is that you will name the "Darwinism deniers" that you suggest exist, and then attempts will be made to invalidate them on the basis that Darwinism is the defacto truth, which of course is circular reasoning based on faith and appealing to authority as evidence. A popular method used to invalidate these deniers is dissection of their biographies and credentials, and if that fails, then their politics.

No doubt there are other methods of irrelevancy.
Folks can be very creative.

And really, how can you disagree with Darwinism since material form changes, and its believers define all change as evolution.

[Greta]

The evidence is so overwhelming it's impossible to know where to start. The claim that there is no evidence for evolution is ungrounded enough to be termed insane.

Anyone who is sincere about learning of the evidence for Darwinism would not play games and distort the meaning of threads on a philosophy forum but would ask evolutionary biologists - if searching Google was too difficult.

However, that would be too threatening, no doubt - dealing with actual experts rather than seeking weak rhetorical victories based on arguments with EB laypersons - all based on the refusal to admit that any evidence is valid.

Flat Earth! No evidence that it's an oblate spheroid. 6,000 years old! No evidence that it's over 4b years old. The Moon landing was a hoax! No evidence that the film and photos are real. Creationism! No evidence for evolution. Oh, but apparently there's lots of evidence for gods, ghosts, angel, demons, resurrections and the virgin birth (sic).

[Walker]

Greta, thank you for exemplifying my previous posting.

Darwinism that refuses challenge on the basis that the science is settled, is not science.

That's the division.

The science of chemistry doesn't use that basis. It uses experiments, and evidence such as explosions.

[Walker]

The evidence is so overwhelming it's impossible to know where to start.

Begin with the essence that you perceive.