This is a new book that you shouldn't miss:
What Darwin got wrong - by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini.
They can't simply dismiss this as Creationist nonsense. (Evolutionists in the past just dismiss arguments they can't refute as Creationist nonsense)
Your wrong about one thing, it certainly can be dismissed. Creationism is rejected before any scientific evidence is considered as well as the unifying principles of Christian theism, allow me to explain. Here is a prime example of what I'm talking about and one of the primary reasons Creationists cannot effectively argue their position. Creationists know what their position is but Darwinism has replaced 'God' with 'natural law', evolution as a scientific definition is blended with a metaphysical one and will never admit it. The devil does not offer you a bottle of poison, he poisons a steak and invites you to dinner:
Karl Popper famously regarded the theory of natural selection as a ‘metaphysical research program’ (
Philosophy Now, Jul/Aug 2012)
I have not read the book and I do intend to, the challenge is to get past the first threshold, metaphysics. Science is terrible at metaphysics because science as it has come to be defined is inductive. Inductive reasoning takes a small subset of a group and uses it to make inferences of the whole set. This causes major problems when you go from very small things in Physics to very large things in Cosmology. The result is something like String Theory that attempt to resolve the seeming contradictions, in an attempt at a
unified theory. Einstein was working on a unified theory of physics on his death bed and the Stephen Hawking, the Lucasian professor of mathematics in the University of Cambridge attempted a unified theory of physics, both failed.
Here is how I know that Darwinism is metaphysics, 'the substantive element that transcends all reality:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
Change, actually a synonym for evolution, being the result of natural law and not miraculous interposition. The scientific (inductive) definition of evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwin and Darwinism adds the cause as natural law as opposed to miraculous interposition. That is transcendence in no uncertain terms, Popper was right but he was beat down so bad by the predominantly atheistic and agnostic world that he had to recant. It reminds me of Galileo having to recant after the inquisition except Galileo's position can be confirmed through a telescope. There is no telescope that can look into history.
Danial Dennet calls Darwinism '
universal acid' that eats through everything. That is a apt description for a transcendent principle that is contrary to common understanding. Most people infer some kind of a Creator or Designer for the universe in general and life in particular, that is always been understood in Western thought to be God. The Darwinian replaces that inference with 'natural law' as an a priori (without prior) natural assumption. That is why all the evidence points to evolution, the transcendence of the a priori assumption comes before the empirical evidence so when the evidence is examined it's all organized around their naturalistic assumptions, aka natural selection. God as cause of anything, going all the way back to the Big Bang is categorically rejected.
There is a reason evolutionists are so hostile to Creationism, it's the same reason that the Nicene Creed begins with a confession of Creation as a definition of Christian profession. The concepts, naturalism and creationism, are transcendent, in that, they transcend all the substantive elements that follow. Why do you think evolutionists never want to discuss the incarnation, resurrection, messianic prophecy or the internal, external and bibliographical tests of the credibility of Scripture?
They need not bother, by defining transcendence as naturalistic all reality is permeated with this one inference. In liberal theology they even change the meaning of the word God, to the '
god above god' (Paul Tillich), effectively putting their philosophy into theological terms rendering Christianity atheistic.
I'm going to order the book today, looking forward to reading it. I realize that the guys that wrote the book have no doubt made a fundamental insight into what Darwinism really is. The problem is that they will never get past that first verse of the Bible 'In the beginning God...', as a matter of fact they will never get through Genesis 1:1. They won't get past this because that word 'God' has been redefined as 'natural law' and any other meaning regarded as the cause is considered foolish.
This is not a lament of despair, I'm proud of Creationists for not wasting time arguing against this a priori assumption evolutionists will never admit. These people know full well that there is a God, who created the heavens and the earth and they suppressed that truth in unrighteousness:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)
Grace and peace,
Mark
