We don’t know humans are but it is at least it approaches practical pursuit to test the hypothesis some time in the future beyond saying DNA sequences are similar and similar pseudo genes appear to be in both species.
There are many transitions along the common descent path that are Uber complex.
-eukaryotic cells
-multicellular organisms
-vertabrates
-birds
-mammals
All these require big FI jumps.
If it isn’t an established scientific finding, then it isn’t scientism is it?
If you pull back the claim you move out of the scientism camp back to science. Thats why I think that UCB did re labeling UCD a working hypothesis.
The problem is that evolutionary theory always assumes this hypothesis and some papers make bizarre claims based on this. Birds losing flight multiple times is an example.
You are insisting on a standard of evidence that would require us to throw out all of science.
We see descent with modification throughout the biosphere. There was already a strong case before the structure of DNA was known. Unraveling the structure of DNA provided very strong confirmation.
It all depends how we define common descent. If it simply means an explanation of similarities as Harshman claims then I agree but this MUST BE MADE clear or we are practicing scientism. This limitation of common descent as a claim of similarities has not been made clear in my opinion. The name implies that life is related by reproduction alone. This claim is unsupported by experiment in almost all cases.
The more scientism position is: we have to use science to solve human condition problems because science deem it good for human condition problems to be solved.
Scientism is just the claim that every truth (e.g. that solving human condition problem is good) can be found by science. Note that science in scientism typically only refers to physical sciences.
I totally disagree. This is not scientism. You are displaying anti-scientific empericism/positivism, similar to actually to scientism. There are true things we can’t demonstrate by those standards.
If we don’t make it clear what the claim common descent means and we allow it to be believed that it means more then it does then IMO we are practicing scientism.
The claim has changed a lot since Darwin made it. This needs to be made clear or we are being misleading. Do people believe that common descent includes God driven mutations according to Harshman and Felsenstein?
Do you disagree that if we are misleading with our claims that we are practicing scientism?
As I discussed with Mike Behe, a claim that all life shares similar biochemical mechanisms is a very straightforward non ambiguous claim that is supported by the evidence.
When ID claims to be disproving Darwinism this is misleading because Darwinism was already disproven a long time ago. When ID begins drinking its own koolaid so as to truly believe evolutionary science is Darwinism, refusing to become informed on this basic fact, well now we have an ideological claim.
At no point is this claim scientism. It is rather just misleading ideology about science.
On the other hand, an IDist intuits that God’s guidance must be scientifically detectable because (1) it’s true and (2) and science can establish this truth claim. Now at this point we have scientism in full bloom. The same is true for the atheist that thinks that science demonstrates God did not guide evolution.
Certainly not. If you have any current textbook or course material where the term Darwinism is used in the public schools in the US, please send it to me. Thanks.