That is correct, but science nonetheless can give an ever more detailed account of the biological origins of humans.
Thanks for responding.
I will make this more specific.
Biological science claims, as you admit, to give an account of the “biological orgins of humans”. You fully accept this – you even state clearly that science does this.
Official scientific programs do this. Every pubilc school science program does this.
It gives “biological orgins of humans”.
You say that without even hesitating – and yet, it’s obviously a conflation of metaphysics and science. Every science program is making a metaphysical claim, and you admit it here.
Why?
The only way to determine the so-called “biological origins” of a human being is to first decide on what the definition of a human being is. That is metaphysics – and that is what every biology, and every general science program does. It defines what a human being is. It claims, actually, that it can tell the difference between a “biological human being” and the “biological last ancestor” of a human being.
In order for a Non-human being to be an ancestor to a human being, a non-human being must give birth to a human being. How is that possible?
Again, as you admit – science merely makes the claim that it can determine the origin of human beings, and that humans descended from non-humans. That is obviously a metaphysical claim.
Incredibly, many Catholics – like yourself – simply accept this scientific declaration of metaphysical matters.
There is nothing wrong with that at all, and it is very desirable knowledge, even though it is just part of the story.
You’re not seeing it. When you use the term “human being” – that’s not “part of the story”. What’s the biological difference between a human and it’s closest non-human ancestor? In the “banned topic” theory, the difference is one of tiny mutations – in fact, it cannot be determined with precision since there must necessarily be “part humans”, not yet fully “banned topic”'d.
That’s the way it works. Gradualism – a basic component in all general scientific textbooks. It’s a metaphysical conclusion.
This shows again that you have no clue about science.
I don’t think personal insults are going to help very much. I watch you struggling to answer this – and you simply avoided even more difficult questions on post #42.
So, if I’m that uninformed – it should be a lot easier for you to deal with this.
First of all, each scientist works in a very narrow field of expertise, and their knowledge of other scientific disciplines is usually rather limited.
They don’t take basic high school biology which is required by all students for graduation?
Interesting – I didn’t realize that scientists were that ignorant.
So even if it were so that all biologists who study human origins would conflate science with metaphysics
I’m not talking about individuals. I’m talking about the discipline of biology – the entire subject area. And by relation in general science – all of science. I can observe you – you’ve surrendered to science the authority to claim that there is a “biological human being” – a metaphysical claim.
And certainly even if that were the case it would be preposterous to claim that it involves, in your words, ‘the entire academic discipline called “science”’.
It would be interesting to see a single article in a single peer reviewed scientific journal that disputes that science can determine what “human origins” are. I even gave you more leeway with the qualifier “biological” origin. Virtually nobody uses that term. You’re trying to squeeze out a position on the extreme margin. Some scientists are creationists also – so we should accept creationism as an accepted scientific position?
The fact that science looks for biological origins of humans does not suggest in itself that ‘science’ believes that this is the whole story – individual scientists, and certainly not all of them, do.
Again, the term “human being” is the whole story. The origin of human beings is a metaphysical study. Science has usurped this metaphysical territory. It defends it on a daily basis.
Second, it would be hard to believe that there are no biologists who study human origins that are not theists. These would never conflate science with metaphysics.
If they accept that science can determine the difference between human and its supposed closes non-human ancestor, and that non-humans can actually be the ancestors of humans – then theist or not, they’ve conflated metaphysics with science.
That’s the issue – not whether they’re atheists or theists.
You have the belief that science doesn’t make metaphysical claims.
I think we can see that science does this, regularily.
We didn’t talk about scientific studies on the origin of the mind and consciousness and rationality either.
