fallfromgrace

Ask yourself this. In the examples you listed, what was the discoverer's primary motivation? Searches for the missing link / oldest human often smack of someone wanting fame or to get published. Heck P.T. Barnum had "missing links" in his sideshow.

Scientists often make mistakes or are guided by selfish objectives as are religious leaders. Hello! Jerry Falwell and pretty much every other politically motivated televangelist. The thing is that scientists keep testing and refining their discoveries and when something proves to be bogus it's called just that.

It is very difficult to study evolution in the human species because we only live long enough to see one full lifecycle. Scientists who study insects or viruses or finches can directly observe the mutations the species undergo from generation to generation because each generation only lasts a day or a year.

In a way, you're doing the same thing many of the atheists around here do to Christians by cherry picking one or two highly flawed examples and calling it proof that the other side's theory is bogus. How many times have you heard Christianity is wrong because of the crusades or Bush?

Well, I think the problem is that recorded history has not been around long enough to observe macro evolution. The best we are able to do is observe changes within fast reproducing organisms and combine that with evidence from the fossil record and clues provided to us by creatures living today such as hair on whales, vestigial legs on snakes, the extraordinary similarity in the genetic coding of humans and apes, the mammalian diving reflex etc. and extrapolate from there.

So back to your original statement.
Is evolution atheistic? No, because many very religious people also believe in evolution.
Is it materialistic? Of course in that it deals with the physical world. If it didn't, it would be metabiology or something.
Is it a philosophy? Perhaps, but all science begins as philosophy. Newton practiced Natural Philosophy. Pythagoras was a philosopher. Science only becomes science once you publish and everyone agrees with your theory.
Is it empirical? dictionary.com defines empirical as:
empirical (m-pr-kl)
adj.

1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.
2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.
3. Of or being a philosophy of medicine emphasizing practical experience and observation over scientific theory.

It certainly fits the first definition. The second is in question and the third does not really apply.

Anyway, I'd rather not torture Bridget with this debate. I'm going to cut loose this weekend. I am just a strong advocate for harmony between religion and science and frequently find myself getting sucked in to defending one side or the other. I guess that's why I'm Buddhist if anything.

[Edited on May 11, 2005 6:36PM]