Hello A-G! Hope you had a great Hubby Birthday day yesterday!
Personally, I think that Darwin elucidated a big part of the puzzle of the evolution of life. But he does not account for its origin; that being the case, it seems to me the theory is necessarily incomplete.
The question of origin goes to the issues: Why is there something, and not nothing? And why are things the way they are, and not some other way? -- Leibniz's two great questions. I strongly doubt that methodological naturalism, given its materialist premise, has a way to engage such questions, let alone answer them. I think you're right that such questions fall into the purview of philosophy (metaphysics) and theology.
Prior to the "Cartesian split," science included such questions within its purview. But methodological naturalism took care of that! :^)
I think it's very interesting that the "father of science," Aristotle, named the three greatest sciences as physics, mathematics -- and theology (a word that was coined by his great teacher, Plato). And of the three sciences, theology was preeminent, the greatest of them all. Because it dealt with the highest things in existent nature.
Many people today just want to say that metaphysics and theology deal with "the supernatural." For Aristotle, they deal with the natural world itself -- that part of nature that cannot be reduced to "telescopes and microscopes."
Probably it would do some good to teach the history of science these days, which is an utterly fascinating study in itself, IMHO. It really helps to place the contemporary disputes into some kind of larger context.
Thank you so much for your excellent essay/post!
Another weakness in the theory, in addition to the origin of life question, is the criticism leveled by ID.
There really is not enough time granted to arrive at the observed complexity of life.
Since I consider an "organizing principle" to be an intelligence, then I saw "natural selection" as a naturally occurring form of "intelligence" that could account for the complexity of life as we see it.
It is not a sufficent "organizing principle," however, and another must be found.
As has been repeated endlessly on these threads, the theory is about the origin of species, not the origin of life. That field of study is called abiogenesis, not evolution. To call evolution "incomplete" because it doesn't account for the origin of life is like calling hydrology incomplete because it doesn't account for the origin of water.
I strongly doubt that methodological naturalism, given its materialist premise, has a way to engage such questions, let alone answer them. I think you're right that such questions fall into the purview of philosophy (metaphysics) and theology. Prior to the "Cartesian split," science included such questions within its purview. But methodological naturalism took care of that! :^)
And what success has philosophy had in answering those questions?
Theology, OTOH, can claim to answer those questions, because it begins with untestable and unfalsifiable axioms, and proceeds from there to draw its conclusions. Of course, the conclusions depend entirely upon the axioms one accepts as a starting point, and since these axioms are unfalsifiable the entire enterprise collapses into an argument over which presumptions must be accepted as true. Which explains why there are hundreds of competing theologies, each claiming to have the truth.
Many people today just want to say that metaphysics and theology deal with "the supernatural." For Aristotle, they deal with the natural world itself -- that part of nature that cannot be reduced to "telescopes and microscopes."
Even so, the deepest questions remain - the theological questions. As you say, the questions Leibniz asked "Why is there something, and not nothing? And why are things the way they are, and not some other way?"
God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, in the indwelling Spirit, in Scripture and in Nature. Even primitives will be held to account if they fail to notice His revelation in nature (Romans 1:20).