SLP said:
I am curious - why are you attacking Darwin and his original thesis? You are aware, are you not, that TODAY, the theory of evolution is substantively different? Why attack a strawman?I am sick and tired of being told what evolution is by people that clearly have no idea. Mutations don't exist? You, sir, clearly do not even know what a mutation is!
No sir, I am attacking a dangerous fallacy in the metaphysics of Darwinian evolution. I promised to demonstrate that the hinge of Darwinian 'natural selection' was a belief in mythical monstrosities. Darwin's 'Origin of Species' was colorfull prose intended to excite the imagination, it is identical to the poetic fantasy of his grandfather in his poem 'Nature's Temple' cited earlier.
"I am well aware that this doctrine of natural selection, exemplified in the above imaginary instances, is open to the same objections which were at first urged against Sir Charles Lyell's noble views on 'the modern changes of the earth, as illustrative of geology;' but we now very seldom hear the action, for instance, of the coast-waves, called a trifling and insignificant cause, when applied to the excavation of gigantic valleys or to the formation of the longest lines of inland cliffs. Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection, if it be a true principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure." (Origin of Species, ch. 3 Natural Selection, Darwin)
So this Natural Selection has changed substantivly has it? Consider this more modern version of the imagary:
"The actual animals that have ever lived on Earth are a tiny subset of the theoretical animals that could exist. These real animal are the products of a very small number of evolutionary trajectories through genetic space. The vast majority of theoretical trajectories through animal space give rise to impossible monsters. Real animals are dotted around here and there among the hypothetical monsters, each perched in this unique place in genetic hyperspace. Each real animal is surrounded by a little cluster of neighbours, most of wom have never existed, but a few of whom are its ancestors, it decendants and its cousins." (Ricard Dawkins 1986)
Like I said, monsters, mythical monsters, that exist in the imagination. Let me make two points clear so that there will be no confusion. First this 'thesis', as you call it, is an attack on the concept of 'special creation', as Darwin called it. Second, it is based not so much on scientific fact as analogy, which is a fancy word for an imaginative illustration. Darwin said this in no uncertain terms.
" And we can clearly understand these analogies, if species have once existed as varieties, and have thus originated: whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if each species has been independently created." (Origin of Species, Variation under Nature ch. 1, Darwin)
Why am I attacking his thesis, because it is a blantant attack on Christian theism. It is obviously metaphysics, natural selection is a fanciful analogy.
SLP said:
Of course, if evolution is premised on a philosophical position, so what? Does that mean that the THEORY of evolution is therefore wrong? If a field of study is premised on a philosophical position, creationism is a myth as well.You are apparently unaware that the NDT encompasses genetics. In fact, genetics has become a major source of empirical evidence FOR evolution.
Evolution was not sythesised with genetics until sometime in the 1930s. In fact, the real work of genetics, where laws of inheritance are reduced to matimatical ratios, was done independantly of Darwins natural selection. Darwin, like his contempories, ignored genetics. The empirical evidence does not belong to this mythical fantasy and for decades wanted nothing to do with it.
SLP said:
Again, why attack a strawman? garbage. Why must reality appeal to the supernatural? Is the real less real if there is no requirement for a Deity to work its magic?
What I cannot get over is how frequently people that are clearly ignorant of the science involved can make pompous proclamations premised on their metaphysical underpinnings.
More satire and cliches', in the absense of real substance I suppose this should be expected. Why don't you just admitt that you are working from naturalistic assumptions? Magic is an interesting choice of words, it implies the supersensable, fantastic, and inexplicable, its a word that describes the transitional form in evolution better then anything else.
What I can't get over is how frequently people are so clearly ignorant of the premise of their own philosophy. This condescending attitude of incredulity toward any kind of theistic reasoning begs the question of proof on its hands and knees. All praise the power of natural selection, the giver of life!
Natural selection is not metaphysics? Nothing could be further from the truth.
