gluadys said:
I know what the modern synthesis is based on. In fact just this afternoon I was going over Mark Ridley's tutorial on it.
That's an interesting discussion on the subject, we seem to have simular tastes in source material.
But the term is not self-explanatory at all. I can think of at least six different ways it is used. And usually the person using it does not define which one(s) s/he is using. I read Denyse O'Leary's book By Design or by Chance last weekend. If you are interested in ID, it is an excellent introduction. She would certainly agree with your thesis that Darwinism is more metaphysics than science.
But I can see that she does not use the term consistently with a philosophical meaning, but sometimes uses it to mean neo-Darwinism which is a school of scientific thought, not philosophy, and sometimes uses it simply to refer to evolution or natural selection.
So I would still like to know with more precision what meaning you personally give to the term. I am not interested in a debate on this issue. For the time being I just want to get people's personal ideas of what is meant by "Darwinism" .
And if anyone else wants to chip in with their own ideas, please do.
When you hear the term "Darwinism" or "Darwinist" what do you take it to mean?
Single common ancestory is a conclusion in evolutionary biology, one that is no longer seriously questioned, even though it should be. The Modern Synthesis is itself a philosophy of science and as such should be subject to valid criticisms on that level. Darwinism is a form of secular thought that expunges theistic reasoning in all forms.
"They helped put an end to the idea that the universe is an idea, that beyond the mundane business of making our way as best we can in a world shot through with contingency, there exists some order, invisible to us, whose logic we transgress at our peril."
The Metaphysical Club, by Louis Menand
This gave rise to pragmatism and if you don't think this is an antithesistic worldview you don't understand the philsophical underpinnings of evolution:
On the Origin of Species was published on Mov. 24, 1859. The word "evolution" barely appears in it. Many scientists by 1859 were evolutionists-that is, they believed that species had not been created once and for all, but had changed over time...Darwin's book decisively tipped the balance of educated opinion to evolutionism; but even afer 1859, more nineteenth-century evolutionists were (whether they identified themselves as such or not) Lamarckians or Spencerians then Darwinians. The purpose of On the Origin of Species was not to introduce the concept of evolution; it was to debunk the concept of supernatural intelligence-the idea that the universe is the result of an idea." (The Metaphisical Club, pp 120, 121)
While Darwin was tipping the balance toward the epistomology of naturalistic assumptions the father of genetics was identifying the principles of what would become the laws of inheritance. His work was rediscovered around the turn of the century and became modern genetics. Darwinism was fadeing away but philosophers of science like Ernst Mayr revived this philosophy of origins and synthesised it with the empirical demonstrations in genetics. The reason is that Darwin said that there were no limits to the amount of change that was possible through natural process and Mendel said that there were.
The single common ancestor model never had a genetic basis and never will because it presumes a limitless number of changes over time dispite the empircal evidence, not because of it. What darwinism is, is a dialectic like the one Hegel used to syntesis theism and atheism, what happens is that the central term gets redefined. Evolution is defined as the change of alleles in populations over time but what it means to the Darwinian is that the change is from the single common ancestor to me and you though exclusivly naturalistic processes. That is how a synthesis works and it's semantical shell game.
In evolutionary biology they have used this supposed synthesis to reconcile The mere suggestion that God acted in time and space to produce all living systems as a deliberate act, with an expressed purpose, is viewed as psuedo science. It can't be considered scientific if God is the cause and I say why not? I have read their literature, their peer reviewed scientific journals, their empirical research and found the theory of evolution (the single common ancestor model) to be counter to the actual scientific evidence, especially genetics. A couple of choice quotes:
No limit to this process of improvement:
"As each species is improved, and as the number of forms will have increased, if we look to the whole course of time, the organic condition of life for other forms will become more complex, and there will be a necessity for other forms to become improved, or they will be exterminated; and I can see no limit to this process of improvement, without the intervention of any other and direct principle of improvement. All this seems to me quite compatible with certain forms fitted for simple conditions, remaining unaltered, or being degraded. If I have a second edition, I will reiterate `Natural Selection', and, as a general consequence, Natural Improvement." (Darwin's letter to Lyell on Natural Selection)
Limits beyond which they cannot change:
Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change. (Mendel)
"What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect." (Pierre-Paul Grasse')
There is either a limit to the process of improvement or there are limits beyond which things cannot completely transform into another 'kind'. Genetics has demonstrated that fundamental changes to the genes produce sever disease and disorder but school children are being taught that these mutations are what drives evolution. This is a myth, a fantasy and a lie.
If I were to attempt a definition of darwinism it would be the single common ancestor model based on naturalistic assumptions. Now if you would like a more elaborate and precise definition we can work on that but I think I have been pretty clear about what I mean by Darwinism.
