When you finally get to the thesis suggested by the title -- that "Darwinism" supposedly has something to do with "Gnosticism" -- incoherency melds with sheer stupidity. The cited authority thinks Darwinism has to do not only with "living things creat[ing] themselves," but even with the "origin of being" itself! In fact darwinian evolution isn't even concerned with the origin of life (let alone "being") but merely how living things change over time.
Even though all antievolution arguments are (IMHO) ultimately flawed, because false, there are far better efforts. Don't waste your time with this mess.
+1
+2
+3. Quote mining ignorance.
+3. Quote mining ignorance.
Your “critical analysis” is as profound, weighty, and interesting as a blank sheet of paper. But then, resentment, fear, and conceit masquerading as reason always is uninteresting.
You said: Even though all antievolution arguments are (IMHO) ultimately flawed, because false, there are far better efforts. Don’t waste your time with this mess.
Spirited: Ah yes, you-—like Lewontin-have an a priori commitment to “just so” stories.
Belief in universal common ancestry depends on particular assumptions about abiogenesis. Without a specific concept of abiogenesis there isn't any reason at all to assume that life arose once, or that it was simple and then became more complex, or that multicellular organisms descended from unicellular creatures. If darwinian evolution isn't concerned with the origin of life how do you distinguish a fossil sequence that is the result of multiple abiogenesis events separated in time from one that is the result of ancestral lineage?
Cordially,