Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[itinerant1]

No I don’t suppose it does. Anyone who like to keep up with science knows that most of the good quotes and knowledge is hidden behind a paywall.

No bother on the reference. I’m fine with accepting it as apocryphally true. Gould and his “NOMA” paradigm suggests that a “catechism” of empirical methods and knowledge would be no problem, just the tools of the “scientific magisterium”.

-TS

The first problem here, as with a number of neo-Darwinists, and I can provide many references at the drop of a hat, is that they take their ideology or tenets of philosophical naturalism as necessary implied by methodological naturalism. Hence, their catechism hardly ever fails to present their ideology as something proven by the science.

The second, and related problem is that philosophical assumptions or beliefs are beyond the scope and competence of science. Darwin did not show the least awareness of the proper limits, scope and competence of science. (References available upon request.)

 

[liquidpele]

Darwin did not show the least awareness of the proper limits, scope and competence of science. (References available upon request.)

How do you figure? He came up with the theory of natural selection and suggested that humans evolved as well, both well supported things today. That was the limit of his claims as far as I can tell. Most of his references to God seemed to me to be arguments against the assumptions of the day in order to have the reader better understand his theory.

 

[itinerant1]

How do you figure? He came up with the theory of natural selection and suggested that humans evolved as well, both well supported things today. That was the limit of his claims as far as I can tell. Most of his references to God seemed to me to be arguments against the assumptions of the day in order to have the reader better understand his theory.

Glad you asked!

“Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution.” --S. J. Gould: Ever Since Darwin

The reason Darwin’s theory is considered “rigidly materialistic” and “atheistic” is because he interpreted all events in nature, the human being and the mind of man through a strict philosophical materialism.

In his early Notebooks Darwin call human thought a “secretion of brain.” This is rank materialism. Darwin’s target was the human mind, which he referred to as “the Citadel.” He said the Citadel could not be attacked directly. The Descent of Man was his attack on the human mind in which he attempted to prove his materialist assumption that the mind of man, as great as it is, differs in degree only from the mind of the anthropoid apes and higher animals.

Hence, Darwin overextended his theory of evolution to include the totality of man.

In one of his transmutation notebooks, Darwin wrote “Love of the deity effect of organization, oh you materialist!..Why is thought being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity a property of matter? It is our arrogance, our admiration of ourselves.”

Darwin disproved the idea of special creation of each species, but his main target was Creation itself.

(That should be enough for starters. I don’t like long posts.)

 

[reggieM]

Glad you asked!

“Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution.” --S. J. Gould: Ever Since Darwin

The reason Darwin’s theory is considered “rigidly materialistic” and “atheistic” is because he interpreted all events in nature, the human being and the mind of man through a strict philosophical materialism.

In his early Notebooks Darwin call human thought a “secretion of brain.” This is rank materialism. Darwin’s target was the human mind, which he referred to as “the Citadel.” He said the Citadel could not be attacked directly. The Descent of Man was his attack on the human mind in which he attempted to prove his materialist assumption that the mind of man, as great as it is, differs in degree only from the mind of the anthropoid apes and higher animals.

Hence, Darwin overextended his theory of evolution to include the totality of man.

In one of his transmutation notebooks, Darwin wrote “Love of the deity effect of organization, oh you materialist!..Why is thought being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity a property of matter? It is our arrogance, our admiration of ourselves.”

Darwin disproved the idea of special creation of each species, but his main target was Creation itself.

(That should be enough for starters. I don’t like long posts.)

Excellent post. I had not seen some of those quotes before. They’re confirmed by many other sources and from Darwin’s own words elsewhere. Very good research here – going beyond the common internet material.

He said the Citadel could not be attacked directly. The Descent of Man was his attack on the human mind in which he attempted to prove his materialist assumption that the mind of man, as great as it is, differs in degree only from the mind of the anthropoid apes and higher animals.

That’s an essential point. Where did you get the information about the Citadel and his attack on the mind of man. It’s clear from his writings, but I wonder if you found a commentary that illustrated that point.

The materialistic assumption that the mind of man, and therefore the human person, differs only in degree from apes has had a very widespread and destructive influence.

 

[edwest2]

Science is philosophy. It used to called ‘natural philosophy’.

It depends on how one qualifies trust. If demonstrable, objective results are the measure, empirical methods pretty much embarrass anything else out there. You can wax eloquent as you like about “inner being” or something “less superficial” than physical models, but when it comes to performance, you end up mumbling, putting your hands in your pockets, and drawing in the dirt with your shoe, while empirical methods get rockets to the moon, vaccinations on the hunt to eliminate polio from the face of the earth and OC-12 switches pushing 600+ megabytes a second of digital bits down the pipes of teh interwebz.

There are definitely some subjective elements there, but there’s a very good empirical case to be made for educating youth in the principles and superiority in terms of performance of empirical epsitemologies and methodologies. That is, we can conclude from an evidential review that empirical principles are important for a well-rounded education.

I think so, but only in the way our courts of law impose the “religion” of facts and evidence and secular jurisprudence. Objectivity mediated by critical analysis is the universal epistemology. We all use is it, event the hard core fundamentalist or the dreamiest mystic. It just gets abandoned when it can be abandoned by some more readily than others.

The evidence is overwhelming that science works, that it is effective and productive in generating knowledge that is verifiable, objective, predictive and falsifiable. That’s a criterion where theology, for example, scores a pathetic 0 for 4. If you take medicine, fly on an airplane, drive a car, or use a computer, you are validating the importance and success of empirical epistemology. The more evidence we have to assess, the more science dominates the performance curve for performative human knowledge.

Natural knowledge. Natural explanations for natural phenemona. That doesn’t preclude theological conjectures, etc. But it’s a basic building block for a free, prosperous, just society.

-TS

Science? Pffft. In the 1800s, most scientists were Christians and the foundations for a lot of the science you’re talking about was laid by them. A lot of our so called “modern” technology was lifted from the Germans after the Second World War. I know people who were on the ground as entire factories were dismantled and shipped to the United States. The cruise missile and the US space program owe their creation to the scientists brought back to the US. A lot of them were former Nazis but that didn’t seem to matter. Your utopian worldview ignores this. And how did America win the war (with the help of our Allies)? According to the August 27, 1945 issue of Life magazine: “…by the Skin of our Teeth”

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about guided missiles being in the hands of misguided men. You ignore what is called “human nature” at your peril.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

Excellent post. I had not seen some of those quotes before. They’re confirmed by many other sources and from Darwin’s own words elsewhere. Very good research here – going beyond the common internet material.

That’s an essential point. Where did you get the information about the Citadel and his attack on the mind of man. It’s clear from his writings, but I wonder if you found a commentary that illustrated that point.

The materialistic assumption that the mind of man, and therefore the human person, differs only in degree from apes has had a very widespread and destructive influence.

Darwin’s Notebooks are very revealing. Darwin’s works are online. You might see which of his Notebooks can be found online. Stephen J. Gould’s book Ever Since Darwin has several choice quotes from the Notebooks pertaining to Darwin’s materialism.

The best discussions are found in books or lectures by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki such as Angels, Apes & Men; The Savior of Science, Intelligent Design; Evolution for Believers, and several other works.

For an excellent scholarly presentation of the philosophical issues involved in evolution theory, there is The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes by Mortimer Jerome Adler.

If you need more titles anytime, just let me know.

 

[itinerant1]

Natural knowledge. Natural explanations for natural phenemona. That doesn’t preclude theological conjectures, etc. But it’s a basic building block for a free, prosperous, just society.

-TS

The concept of justice is not an empirically verifiable phenomenon.

Which of the natural sciences treat of “justice” in itself?

 

[Touchstone]

The concept of justice is not an empirically verifiable phenomenon.

Which of the natural sciences treat of “justice” in itself?

Well, as it happens, I was just reading yesterday back from Marc Hauser’s *Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong. *He’s got a good long treatment of research done that spans different ages and cultures that draws a picture of “justice” and “fairness” as part of a human’s innate “moral grammar”. For example, two year olds have discernible sensibilities and thresholds for fairness, and have predictable responses in and out of different ranges (“it’s ok if that other kid gets two cookies and I only get one, but I’m going to have a fit if he gets two or one and I get none”).

Cultural factors push these factors back and forth to some degree, but only to a degree; humans are remarkably universal in their basic sensibilities about fairness and justice.

Which is not to say you’re going to uncover the finer points of intellectual property law in global economies from these surveys. But even so, the scaffolding, the basic “moral grammar” that informs our sense of justice appears to be discoverable and discovered to some significant degree in an objective, scientific way.

-TS

 

[itinerant1]

Well, as it happens, I was just reading yesterday back from Marc Hauser’s *Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong. *He’s got a good long treatment of research done that spans different ages and cultures that draws a picture of “justice” and “fairness” as part of a human’s innate “moral grammar”. For example, two year olds have discernible sensibilities and thresholds for fairness, and have predictable responses in and out of different ranges (“it’s ok if that other kid gets two cookies and I only get one, but I’m going to have a fit if he gets two or one and I get none”).

Cultural factors push these factors back and forth to some degree, but only to a degree; humans are remarkably universal in their basic sensibilities about fairness and justice.

Which is not to say you’re going to uncover the finer points of intellectual property law in global economies from these surveys. But even so, the scaffolding, the basic “moral grammar” that informs our sense of justice appears to be discoverable and discovered to some significant degree in an objective, scientific way.

-TS

Innate “moral grammar”. Hmmm. I wonder if this is supposed to be some type of innate knowledge, which would raise a whole lot of questions.

If this “moral grammar” is alleged to be the product of evolution, as in the sense of the Darwinian moral sense, then it cannot have a truly objective foundation since its development was contingent on natural selection. The moral grammar could have developed very differently in different circumstances, and of course, if you wound up Darwinian evolution, things would not turn out the same, including the moral grammar. Hence, it is only objective in the sense that it exists and no more.

Then there is the judgement about moral grammar. How do you know the mind evolved, in the Darwinian world, so as to even permit objective judgments. We may be merely constructed by NS selection to think in a certain way. Those were Darwin’s darkest thoughts about the implications of his theory. Darwin’s brain secreted some very dark thoughts at times.

Hence, only a knowledge that the natural sciences cannot provide is capable of dealing with the issues involved.

 

[Touchstone]

Innate “moral grammar”. Hmmm. I wonder if this is supposed to be some type of innate knowledge, which would raise a whole lot of questions.

If this “moral grammar” is alleged to be the product of evolution, as in the sense of the Darwinian moral sense, then it cannot have a truly objective foundation since its development was contingent on natural selection. The moral grammar could have developed very differently in different circumstances, and of course, if you wound up Darwinian evolution, things would not turn out the same, including the moral grammar. Hence, it is only objective in the sense that it exists and no more.

That is as objective as any sense gets!

Chimps, for example, developed along a different path. They have different instincts and innate sensibilities. That’s an objective, observable feature of their behavior and physiology.

If humans had branched along some different path than the one we ended up following, it’s likely the moral grammar for that species would be different than ours, too. But just as objective, just as innate. It would be obtain, just like our moral grammar, completely independently of our personal wishes of preferences on the matter.

Then there is the judgement about moral grammar. How do you know the mind evolved, in the Darwinian world, so as to even permit objective judgments. We may be merely constructed by NS selection to think in a certain way.

There’s nothing ‘mere’ about that. Try it, it takes a lot of time and resources and trials to work out.

Those were Darwin’s darkest thoughts about the implications of his theory. Darwin’s brain secreted some very dark thoughts at times.

Well, someone was bound to look at what is, as it is, evidence against interest, at some point. It sounds very much like you think these implications cannot be and do not obtain, simply because you find them “dark”. Do you think biology rearranges itself to accomodate your preferences? It is what it is, right? Dark or no?

Happily, we are not our genes. We are not condemned whatever dark implications one might panic at. We have the good fortune of brains that can assess such implications, and choose paths that are “light”.

Hence, only a knowledge that the natural sciences cannot provide is capable of dealing with the issues involved.

Hmmm, how would we qualify such knowledge as knowledge, if we were to come upon it?

-TS

 

[itinerant1]

Well, someone was bound to look at what is, as it is, evidence against interest, at some point. It sounds very much like you think these implications cannot be and do not obtain, simply because you find them “dark”. Do you think biology rearranges itself to accomodate your preferences? It is what it is, right? Dark or no?

Are you serious? These were Darwin’s concerns, not mine. He was deeply disturbed by the implications of his theory. And he was, undeniably, a first rate naturalist. You will have to take it up with him.

Happily, we are not our genes. We are not condemned whatever dark implications one might panic at. We have the good fortune of brains that can assess such implications, and choose paths that are “light”.

Unfortunately, since you subscribe to the modern myth that we think with our brains, then you are your genes. No two ways about it.

Hmmm, how would we qualify such knowledge as knowledge, if we were to come upon it?
-TS

We came upon it 2,500 years ago. You are a wee bit behind the times. It’s called philosophical knowledge as distinct from natural science. The fact that science was once called “natural philosophy” is something you used to gloss over the difference. It was called natural philosophy to distinguish it from first philosophy, the science that studies being-as-such, i.e. metaphysics.

 

[liquidpele]

Glad you asked!

“Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution.” --S. J. Gould: Ever Since Darwin

The reason Darwin’s theory is considered “rigidly materialistic” and “atheistic” is because he interpreted all events in nature, the human being and the mind of man through a strict philosophical materialism.

In his early Notebooks Darwin call human thought a “secretion of brain.” This is rank materialism. Darwin’s target was the human mind, which he referred to as “the Citadel.” He said the Citadel could not be attacked directly. The Descent of Man was his attack on the human mind in which he attempted to prove his materialist assumption that the mind of man, as great as it is, differs in degree only from the mind of the anthropoid apes and higher animals.

Hence, Darwin overextended his theory of evolution to include the totality of man.

In one of his transmutation notebooks, Darwin wrote “Love of the deity effect of organization, oh you materialist!..Why is thought being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity a property of matter? It is our arrogance, our admiration of ourselves.”

Darwin disproved the idea of special creation of each species, but his main target was Creation itself.

(That should be enough for starters. I don’t like long posts.)

… so I take it you believe your mind is not based in the physicalness of the brain?

And this is simply part of the “men evolved too” claim that he made which I mentioned earlier. If we evolved, that includes our brain, which you must admit is at the very least linked to our mind.

 

[Touchstone]

Are you serious? These were Darwin’s concerns, not mine. He was deeply disturbed by the implications of his theory. And he was, undeniably, a first rate naturalist. You will have to take it up with him.

The point here is that the implications don’t change the underlying reality. Saying “the implications are dark” in any number of ways does NOT change what produces the implications. Right?

Unfortunately, since you subscribe to the modern myth that we think with our brains, then you are your genes. No two ways about it.

Doesn’t follow. The mind is that which affords not only powerful capabilities in pursuit of genetic imperatives, but equally powerful capabilities in pursuit of other goals. Post-evolutionary, you might say, due to the nature of the mind have the faculties of rational analysis, abstraction and self-contemplation that it does.

We came upon it 2,500 years ago. You are a wee bit behind the times. It’s called philosophical knowledge as distinct from natural science. The fact that science was once called “natural philosophy” is something you used to gloss over the difference. It was called natural philosophy to distinguish it from first philosophy, the science that studies being-as-such, i.e. metaphysics.

That doesn’t tell me what qualifies it as knowledge. What qualifies a metaphysical proposition or intuition as knowledge. Or is a proposition just ‘knowledge’ because we like to say it is?

-TS

 

[itinerant1]

… so I take it you believe your mind is not based in the physicalness of the brain?

That can be interpreted in different ways.

It is one thing to say thought is a function of brain. That idea can be expressed in a more sophisticated way than Darwin did when he characterized thought as “secretion of brain”. Huxley, for instance, said “Thought is as much a function of matter as motion is.” Later he said “There is every reason to believe that consciousness is a function of nervous matter, when that matter has attained a certain degree of organization, just as we know the other actions to which the nervous system ministers, such as reflex action, and the like, to be.”

Huxley’s “function” avoids the crudity of “secretion”, but it is just a generic “cover-all” expression for Darwin’s painfully specific country-boy term.

More perceptive thinkers like John Stuart Mill said thought and matter “are not merely different, but are at the opposite poles of existence.” Herbert Spencer pointed out the futility of attempting to reduce mental states to physical processes. He said “No effort enables us to assimilate them. That a feeling has nothing in common with a unit of motion becomes more than ever manifest when we bring them into juxtaposition.”

The relative integrity of the brain provides a necessary condition for thought and consciousness. However, the brain and its processes are not a sufficient condition for thought. Conflating necessary and sufficient conditions is bad science.

The bottom line is we don’t think with our brains, but we don’t think without them.

 

[itinerant1]

That doesn’t tell me what qualifies it as knowledge. What qualifies a metaphysical proposition or intuition as knowledge. Or is a proposition just ‘knowledge’ because we like to say it is?

-TS

Critical judgement on what qualifies as knowledge presupposes knowledge to make that judgement. Hence, your question puts the cart before the horse, and thus it is capable of going nowhere, except maybe to Erehwon.

 

[itinerant1]

Doesn’t follow. The mind is that which affords not only powerful capabilities in pursuit of genetic imperatives, but equally powerful capabilities in pursuit of other goals. Post-evolutionary, you might say, due to the nature of the mind have the faculties of rational analysis, abstraction and self-contemplation that it does.

-TS

Apparently you are unfamiliar and unversed in the subject of mind-body problems because your statement misses the point entirely. There is no rational analysis involved in what you said. But I will give you a second chance. Do overs will be permitted.

 

[Touchstone]

Critical judgement on what qualifies as knowledge presupposes knowledge to make that judgement. Hence, your question puts the cart before the horse, and thus it is capable of going nowhere, except maybe to Erehwon.

So, then, knowledge is unqualified, in your view?

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Apparently you are unfamiliar and unversed in the subject of mind-body problems because your statement misses the point entirely. There is no rational analysis involved in what you said. But I will give you a second chance. Do overs will be permitted.

OK, well you should remind me what the point is, so I don’t miss it yet again? I’d hate waste my second chance, thanks!

-TS

 

[itinerant1]

The point here is that the implications don’t change the underlying reality. Saying “the implications are dark” in any number of ways does NOT change what produces the implications. Right?
-TS

Nada. No cigar.

If the full implications are so, then we cannot know whether we can attain knowledge of the world as it is. An absurd prospect indeed, especially for science.

 

[Touchstone]

Nada. No cigar.

If the full implications are so, then we cannot know whether we can attain knowledge of the world as it is. An absurd prospect indeed, especially for science.

I’m not following. Are you saying “dark implications” are false implications? Or perhaps “dark implications” just mean the implications can’t be known or understood?

If there are dark implications to discover, does that make them “non-discoverable”, by virtue of being dark?

-TS