History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Log of recent posts

August 19th, 2009 · 3 Comments

Some recent posts:

Previous list/links

Tags: links

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Stephen P. Smith // Aug 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm

    Regarding activity on Amazon, note the strange silence that has fallen on the Darwin debate, not my last remark to find a summary of the arguments:


  • 2 Stephen P. Smith // Aug 19, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    This was my last post on that thread!

    Summary points!

    One working hypothesis is that the noted “begging” is necessary (an expression of Schopenhauer`s will that does venture into anger), even if it is outside Darwin`s view and his “naturalistic” paradigm. The begging indicates something contrived, like the space-time fabric that is found contrived to underwrite Darwin`s theory (see below). We detect begging because we, and life, recognize design at the foundational level (noted universal grammar). However, this points to vitalism, and it has been that the Darwinian world-view is opposed to vitalism; therefore, anger.

    What sort of precondition underwrites Darwin`s theory of evolution? Assumptions about the space-time fabric: asserting that the fabric is a sample space that involves a hypothetical probability distribution function depicting “random variation,” asserting that this sample space covers Richard Dawkins`s “bioform space,” and asserting the fabric comes with a Darwin friendly fitness landscape that interacts with the environment to permit navigation of the bioform space. These assumptions reveal that the space-time fabric has been intelligently designed by Darwinists to beg the validity of natural selection. Natural selection is now a tautology that finds itself indistinguishable from teleology that touches the space-time fabric. In the history of domestication, it is clear that the space-time fabric has been coopted by agency, turning natural selection into artificial selection.

    The apparent navigation on the bioform space has traveled far, as reproductive fitness says little about the complexity of human morphology and experience. If reproductive fitness was primary, then bacteria would be the fittest. The space-time fabrics had to open up to new niches that supported new complex expressions of life, otherwise Darwinian begging at the level of reproductive fitness is found impotent. The “just so” stories had to come with a space-time fabric that had been intelligently designed to serve its purpose.

    Or in other words, randomness and selection are not context independent, and only a context independent theory can be taken as foundational. Darwin`s theory is discovered provisional, and restricted to a narrow domain of application (like plant and animal breeding). And we can point to things that Darwin`s theory can`t tell us. Darwin’s theory did not anticipate biological symbiosis. It did not explain the extreme convergences of a kind noted by Simon Conway Morris. It did not anticipate the fewness of our genes. It did not anticipate the Hox systems, and the extreme examples of cooption noted by the interactive complexity apparent in the genome. It did not anticipate the findings of epigenetics where DNA is found activated by environmental cues. Darwin’s theory anticipates little, it merely rationalizes itself after the fact of discovery. And therefore, such a theory cannot be used as a foundation for evolution; therefore we see anger that is indicative of Schopenhauer`s will and an innate vitalism.

    But note where reason has now brought us: to the issue of Schopenhauer`s will. This is now the realm of philosophy, where scientism cannot go.

  • 3 Darwiniana » Amazon evolution forum // Aug 20, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    […] asked Hucklebird to share some of the Amazon forum discussion here: Smith comment: Amazon debates Stephen P. Smith said, August 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm Regarding activity on Amazon, note the strange […]

Leave a Comment