Coyoteman, we don't ask our lawnmowers to provide an account of the evolution of life (er, species is the standard reductionist term).
If something "evolves," it must be evolving from something, and probably towards something. My conjecture is, that "something" contains (at its origin) the specification of evolutionary potentialities and the context of their development (materials and laws). Just the word "evolve" implies a rational, not a haphazard process. For something to be "rational," it must have a "limit" somewhere. It can't be pure chaos and be "rational": Our universe appears to be lawfully ordered. But a chaos cannot order itself.
Many Darwinists I know seem to think a doctrine can be understood as "equivalent" to natural processes. If you have the right doctrine, you can just squeeze all of nature into it, and it will make perfect sense.
Metaphysics, which as James suggests is about "thinking clearly," enables us to see that we are dealing, however, with two completely different categories in such a situation: articulations in language and articulations in the natural world -- they are not equivalent; no "A = A" obtains here.
This might seem like perfect psychobabble to you. If so, I'm really sorry for that. (Mainly I'm just recapitulating Aristotle here.) It seems to me, the character of evolutionary development may very well depend in some way on the conditions of its origin. It seems to me a "life science" cannot forever dodge this problem.
Darwin's theory is not a theory about the origin of life (or consciousness). I accept that. Though you'd think biology in general would want to come to grips with origins at some point.
At the same time, I notice many people these days making Darwinist evolution theory the linchpin of an entire cosmology that does speculate about the origins of life.... On my view FWIW this is an illegitimate translation from science into fields where it is not appropriate.
Be that as it may, to say that I do not regard Darwin's theory as "complete" should hardly be objectionable. It is the job of science to constantly prepare to find itself in a situation where its "best" theory is overcome by new insights and developments. There have been two earth-shattering revolutions in the physical sciences within the past 100 years; but Darwinism just goes along "unevolved" as it were, as if none of the new physical discoveries are relevant to it.
Don't forget, Darwinist theory is just that: a theory. It is not a law of nature. So it seems to me it is perfectly appropriate to question perceived shortcomings, if only to make our understanding of the relevant problems better and stronger. Especially since as science, Darwinist theory is a tad peculiar in that it is not premised on direct observation and replicable experiments. It is historical in its approach to nature, and is largely intuitive in form.
Well, I don't know where all this leaves us. But I'm so very glad to hear from you, Coyoteman!
Me either.. How can you have life sciences when nobody knows what life even "IS"...
When a body dies what left the scene?..
People getting all pissy faced(i.e. real serious) over what life "is or isn't".. is silly..
What is life?.. Does anybody know?.. Is life mechanical or eternal?..
What is eternity?.. Are humans just apes that spend lots of money on religious clubs?..
And design religious clothing?..
Coyoteman, we don't ask our lawnmowers to provide an account of the evolution of life (er, species is the standard reductionist term).
Specific things for specific purposes. The theory of evolution (not "Darwinism") deals with change in the genome.
If something "evolves," it must be evolving from something, and probably towards something. My conjecture is, that "something" contains (at its origin) the specification of evolutionary potentialities and the context of their development (materials and laws).
Wrong. There is no "toward." There is more likely to be an "away from" than a "toward." For any given condition, some individuals in a population are better adapted, some more poorly adapted. Those in a population who are better adapted will, in the long run, tend to have more offspring, while those who are more poorly adapted have relatively fewer offspring. The end result is the genome which is, overall, better adapted to the multiplicity of conditions in their environment will be passed on more successfully.
Just the word "evolve" implies a rational, not a haphazard process. For something to be "rational," it must have a "limit" somewhere. It can't be pure chaos and be "rational": Our universe appears to be lawfully ordered. But a chaos cannot order itself.
You just stepped off the deep end. While the natural world operates within given parameters, it is reactionary, not "rational" There is no planning which adaptations will work better; those which don't work as well are weeded out. As for "a chaos cannot order itself" you're back to that metaphysical philosophical mumbo-jumbo. That phrase simply has no meaning beyond opinion.
Many Darwinists I know seem to think a doctrine can be understood as "equivalent" to natural processes. If you have the right doctrine, you can just squeeze all of nature into it, and it will make perfect sense.
Back to "Darwinists" again. Otherwise this paragraph makes no sense to me.
Metaphysics, which as James suggests is about "thinking clearly," enables us to see that we are dealing, however, with two completely different categories in such a situation: articulations in language and articulations in the natural world -- they are not equivalent; no "A = A" obtains here.
If "thinking clearly" is what I often see in your posts, I will stick to science. The fog of words you weave around a subject generally leaves me none the wiser, and often slightly confused, for having groped my way through it.
This might seem like perfect psychobabble to you. If so, I'm really sorry for that.
Hallelujah! We agree on something!
(Mainly I'm just recapitulating Aristotle here.) It seems to me, the character of evolutionary development may very well depend in some way on the conditions of its origin. It seems to me a "life science" cannot forever dodge this problem.
What difference would you have in evolution if life started 1) naturally, 2) seeded from outer space, or 3) by some divine intervention? Please specify where the theory of evolution would have to be different for any of these three possibilities.
Darwin's theory is not a theory about the origin of life (or consciousness). I accept that. Though you'd think biology in general would want to come to grips with origins at some point.
Yes, I know its a theory. I have posted the definition of a theory dozens of times trying to educate others here on what a theory really is.
Biology does want to come to grip with origins. The theory of evolution is not the method it uses. There are hypotheses which are exploring origins, but none has yet gained sufficient support to be classified as a theory. (A biology book will contain hundreds of hypotheses and theories, along with the theory of evolution. Only creationists seem to think one theory has to, just HAS TO, deal with all of these diverse subjects.)
At the same time, I notice many people these days making Darwinist evolution theory the linchpin of an entire cosmology that does speculate about the origins of life.... On my view FWIW this is an illegitimate translation from science into fields where it is not appropriate.
Look closer. There may be more than one theory or hypothesis being addressed. Perhaps your disdain for evolution has led you to miss the dividing lines between separate lines of research?
Be that as it may, to say that I do not regard Darwin's theory as "complete" should hardly be objectionable. It is the job of science to constantly prepare to find itself in a situation where its "best" theory is overcome by new insights and developments.
And that is the case. However, with regard to the theory of evolution, there is currently no competing theory.
There have been two earth-shattering revolutions in the physical sciences within the past 100 years; but Darwinism just goes along "unevolved" as it were, as if none of the new physical discoveries are relevant to it.
Really? What revolutions are you considering? The theory of evolution has dealt well with the discovery of DNA, and has emerged stronger for it.
Don't forget, Darwinist theory is just that: a theory. It is not a law of nature. So it seems to me it is perfectly appropriate to question perceived shortcomings, if only to make our understanding of the relevant problems better and stronger. Especially since as science, Darwinist theory is a tad peculiar in that it is not premised on direct observation and replicable experiments. It is historical in its approach to nature, and is largely intuitive in form.
The theory of evolution (which you erroneously call "Darwinism" so as to demonize and "ism-ize" it) is a theory. And the details of that theory are being worked out in a hundred or more technical journals. The fact that it is in part an historical science makes no difference. The scientific method works just as well on historical sciences.
Well, I don't know where all this leaves us. But I'm so very glad to hear from you, Coyoteman!
It leaves me still advocating for science and the scientific method. (But its getting pretty lonely in these here parts lately!)
As you say, Darwin's theory of evolution is incomplete. To me it is akin to Newton's classical physics which although useful, fails at the large scales (relativity) and the small scales (quantum mechanics.)
It is also not metaphysics, philosophy or theology and every attempt to appropriate the theory for such purposes reflects poorly on all the related disciplines of science.