[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I stand by my observation that Darwinist theory is the basis for Marx’s theories of man and history. For Darwin, it is the species that is significant; the individual has no real significance in itself beyond what it contributes to the gene pool of the species."

Exactly opposite. For Darwin, it was the individual that was important; he did not speak of doing something for the good of the species. And this still doesn't explain how Marx could use Darwin as the basis of his theories of man and history, when those theories had largely been formulated before Marx ever read Darwin.

"But then we must realize that “logos” is non-phenomenal, non-random, immaterial, and “transcendent” — the very sort of thing that both Darwinist and Marxian materialist presuppositions forbid."

The very sort of thing that all science ignores because it is untestable. Anybody can make claims about what the *logos* is without fear of anybody being able to say they are wrong. Very convenient.

[betty boop]

I wrote: "But then we must realize that “logos” is non-phenomenal, non-random, immaterial, and “transcendent” — the very sort of thing that both Darwinist and Marxian materialist presuppositions forbid."

To which you replied: The very sort of thing that all science ignores because it is untestable. Anybody can make claims about what the *logos* is without fear of anybody being able to say they are wrong. Very convenient.

Hi CarolinaGuitarman! Science can ignore this as "untestable" if it wants to. But this is entirely beside the point: There would be no science at all without this "untestable" thing, "reason." "Logos" -- which is simply the ancient Greek word for reason, ratio -- is indispensable to what science does, for it is the very presupposition on which science is based, thus that which makes science possible in the first place.

In other words, the world is "intelligible" only to the extent it is "reasonable."

In other words: No reason, no science. Without reason, science has nothing to do, and no way to do it anyway. Do you dispute this finding?