The theory of evolution is incomplete. Darwin never asked or answered "what is life v. non-life/death in nature." Let's not forget "why."
Why do life forms exist at all?
Why do they exist as they do?
We can pretty much answer why they cannot exist in ways other than they do, because existing in a fashion too far removed from that which is and sustains life -- simply does not live.
Point is this: the materialist has to be able to tell you why he chose to live (although it appears he can't tell you what life is) as opposed to just exist (atomically, or possibly just chemically).
The materialist furthermore must be able to say conclusively and authoritatively why he chose to "evolve," and what value system he invented that determined what passes for "advancement" (without any objective standard to say so -- though this is a key tenet of any good practice of scientific inquiry -- to which in truth he pays only lip-service).
For all his self-elevated and presumed "brilliance," (and admiration for which he expects the masses to just laddle out to him, because, of course in his own mind he is so "brilliant") the materialist simply cannot tell us "why."
I submit the reason for this is two fold: (1) He neither designed himself in the past nor sustains himself in the present, (2) He's not as "brilliant" or "advanced" as he would have those (who too often and so smugly he considers to be intellects less than his own) believe.
The Scriptures quite aptly weigh in on such misplaced illusions of "brilliance." Speaking of the scholars of his own age, the Apostle Paul writes:
"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Corinthians 1:20)
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22)
By contrast the Christian has the answer for "why" and the answer for the Source of life itself. As we read in the gospel of John:
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
FReegards!
Alamo-Girl wrote:
The theory of evolution is incomplete. Darwin never asked or answered "what is life v. non-life/death in nature."
To which Agamemnon replied: Let's not forget "why." ... Why do life forms exist at all? ... Why do they exist as they do?
Aristotle famously propounded the thesis that "All men desire to know."
But a man who does not ask the question, "WHY?" does not exhibit the least desire "to know" anything at all. For the simple reason that he must believe he already knows everything worth knowing, so there is nothing further "to know." "WHY???" questions are therefore redundant, irrelevant.
Plus we must recognize that every "WHY???" question necessarily involves the explication of a Final Cause — a purpose or goal, a "limit" that Nature is seeking to realize.
Ever since Francis Bacon, "WHY???" questions of this type have been banished from science, as being too "metaphysical." And thus was the scientific method born.
Bacon wanted to expunge all of philosophy from the practice of science. But he certainly didn't succeed. Ironically, philosophy is foundational to the practice of modern science, in the measure in which it holds materialism (or physicalism) as its fundamental explanatory paradigm.
For materialism is nothing more nor less than a philosophical DOCTRINE of very ancient vintage.
Of course, in accepting such a doctrine, all scientific progress instantly ceases. Under the materialist presupposition become scientific "paradigm," there is absolutely no way to discover the answers to your two great (and historically persistent) questions, Agamemnon:
"Why do life forms exist at all?.... Why do they exist as they do?"
So you simply STOP asking such questions. (Which to me is like performing something like a self-lobotomy....)
You stand in an estimable, honorable line of human thinkers going back to Leibniz at least, who framed your very questions similarly:
WHY are things the way they are, and not some other way? And WHY does anything exist at all, why not nothing?
Such questions are totally unanswerable, absent the idea of Aristotle's Final Cause — purpose, goal, logical limit: Aristotle tells us that Final Cause is that cause for which all the other causes — formal, material, efficient — exist in the first place.
Certain scientists nowadays — on the one hand — will have nothing to do with final causes. Indeed, final causes are to be categorically "banned" from "science."
But on the other hand, in proposing Darwinism as an explanation of how living species evolve without God being involved in any way shape or form — they are working towards justifying a final cause — in other words, a "result," purpose, or goal, conducive to showing that God is "unnecessary" to the understanding of our world.
In yet other words, the purpose or goal of this exercise is to show that God has nothing to do with Nature, or with existents living or non-living, in any way shape or form.
Ergo: God is "unnecessary" to the "scientific" explication of Nature.
The next step is to declare that "God is dead."
Or I gather that is the entire point of the exercise, at least in certain scientific circles. (C.f. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Richard Lewontin, Steven Pinker, Peter Singer, et al.)
Fortunately, such a prejudice did not operate with some of the greatest scientific thinkers the world has ever known; e.g., Aristotle, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, just to mention a few....
And we humans have benefited most spectacularly from their insights....
Thank you ever so much, dear Agamemnon, for your outstanding observations!