Replies

There is a simple grandeur in the view of life with its powers of growth, assimilation and reproduction, being originally breathed into matter under one or few forms, and that whilst this our planet has gone circling according to fixed laws, and land and water, in a cycle of change, have gone on replacing each other, that from so simple an origin, through the power of gradual selection of influential changes, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been evolved."
-Darwin

If we ultimately come from matter, without reason, or any design --- or just by ‘luck’ we exist in ‘this‘ universe with its’ fortuitous laws… What is this ‘simple grandeur in the view of life’ in the context of the current naturalism within science regarding Darwinism? If someone states human life has no ultimate purpose - how can that statement, or any other statement put forth by mankind, have any ultimate purpose? Beyond this, if life is ‘ultimately’ meaningless due to undirected mechanistic processes - why should there be a need to state this to mankind over and over as if the statement has actual meaning? IOW, is current science here merely to inform mankind that there is ultimately no meaning to everything that we study, learn, and believe other than invoking the reason and purpose from Darwinism; feed, fight, flee, and… ‘reproduce‘? Is science now able to put the human experience of this ‘grandeur’ on a Petri dish for all to study in the purely naturalistic fashion it currently employs?

Furthermore, Darwin himself, later in life, stated basically that ‘beauty’ does not actually exist - and current science states that we all must keep in mind that ‘design’ is also non-existent --- nature merely displays the appearance of ‘design’.

I am not a creationist nor do I think ‘id’ should currently be taught in high school, but I see no reason why students should not be allowed to explore the questions (or simular questions) above in class. I would think this is especially true considering what they will be exposed to in college biology.
As posted previously:

Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism…
---Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology (1998, 3rd Ed., Sinauer Associates), p. 5

Again, what is this ‘simple grandeur in the view of life’ when we reference Darwinism?

Consider consciousness… Is it merely an "emergent property" of natural selection? If so, where does the material complexity of human thought and the qualitative pieces for ‘beauty and grandeur‘ exist? Is human thought nothing more than the liver producing bile (see Huxley/Cabanis)? Until naturalism can reduce the qualitative properties of human consciousness into material things, the arguments based on naturalism are as immaterial as any other argument.