B
bogeydogg
Guest
I think fundamentally there is nothing wrong with belief in evolution (the idea that over time species change), however such belief does not necessarily require the additional adherance to natural selection (the unguided process by which species change). The objection I admit is philisophical and not scientific, though I think science apart from logic and philosophy is impossible since even the most pure scientist has a preconcieved world view thorugh which he tries to explain the world around himself, so assuming that does not disqualify me here goes.
The problem with natural selection is that it fundamentally belives in chance.
The problem with a belief in chance is that chance does not exist.
Understand when I say “chance” I do not mean mathematical probability, what I mean is true uncaused randomness. David Hume explained that in any percieved causal relationship there are innumerable unseen causes which lead either primarily or secondarily toward any outcome of any event. Some people, Kant among them, felt that Hume had done away with cause and effect and the reprecussions among the theological and scientific worlds were severe, but in truth Hume had done no such thing. The assertion that we cannot positively know the cause of an observed effect is not the same as saying that there is such a thing as an uncaused effect. To ascribe anything as having happened “by chance” is to say that something has happened apart from a real physical antecedent cause. Thomas Aquinas rightly identified God as the First Cause of all things with many many secondary causes leading down through the ages to our present day result in a direct line of causality to the world we find around us today. Chance however, having no body power or will, cannot ever be one of those causes. The reason why is simple.
If we were to play cards and loose we might say that “we had bad luck”, but in fact we had no such thing. Rather the handling, ordering, shuffling, dealing, taking of cards by other players led to our losing in a direct causal way and when viewed from this perspective chance, luck, etc. are precluded as having had a hand in our fall. The problem of ascribing causal power to chance is so severe for the neo-Darwinist that even Richard Dawkins discredits the practice, but here is where the natural selectionist runs into the wall.
If evolution is an unguided process of random mutations at the genetic level leading to the changes in species and biodiversity within the macro and micro world, then the unguidedness of evolution apart from St. Thomas’ First Cause can lead, rationally to no other conclusion than that the neo-Darwinist is embracing chance as having causal power.
Of course the Dawkins’s of the world will turn to Quantum mechanics and the percieved randomness found there and claim that there is in fact real randomness within the universe, but a sober scientist who does not subscribe to the omnicompotence of man’s logic will admit that the percieved randomness of Quantum mechanics is probably due more to an incomplete understanding of the phenomenae within the field than actual randomness so there is at best a tenuous defence of randomness to be found there. In fact the advent of the so-called String Theory was born of the uncomfartable nature of the embracing of chance among Quantum Physicists so we should not assume a unified mind within the scientific community at large concerning the apparent random nature of Quantum Physics.
Apart from things like explosions in the fossil record, the astounding lack of fossil evidence and, quoting Bill Bryson here, the absence of our common ancestors with the other apes, the sheer lack of rationality within neo-Darwinism should be enough to preclude it from serious thought all by itself.
I don’t think anyone had mentioned that yet so I thought I would.
God Bless.
The problem with natural selection is that it fundamentally belives in chance.
The problem with a belief in chance is that chance does not exist.
Understand when I say “chance” I do not mean mathematical probability, what I mean is true uncaused randomness. David Hume explained that in any percieved causal relationship there are innumerable unseen causes which lead either primarily or secondarily toward any outcome of any event. Some people, Kant among them, felt that Hume had done away with cause and effect and the reprecussions among the theological and scientific worlds were severe, but in truth Hume had done no such thing. The assertion that we cannot positively know the cause of an observed effect is not the same as saying that there is such a thing as an uncaused effect. To ascribe anything as having happened “by chance” is to say that something has happened apart from a real physical antecedent cause. Thomas Aquinas rightly identified God as the First Cause of all things with many many secondary causes leading down through the ages to our present day result in a direct line of causality to the world we find around us today. Chance however, having no body power or will, cannot ever be one of those causes. The reason why is simple.
If we were to play cards and loose we might say that “we had bad luck”, but in fact we had no such thing. Rather the handling, ordering, shuffling, dealing, taking of cards by other players led to our losing in a direct causal way and when viewed from this perspective chance, luck, etc. are precluded as having had a hand in our fall. The problem of ascribing causal power to chance is so severe for the neo-Darwinist that even Richard Dawkins discredits the practice, but here is where the natural selectionist runs into the wall.
If evolution is an unguided process of random mutations at the genetic level leading to the changes in species and biodiversity within the macro and micro world, then the unguidedness of evolution apart from St. Thomas’ First Cause can lead, rationally to no other conclusion than that the neo-Darwinist is embracing chance as having causal power.
Of course the Dawkins’s of the world will turn to Quantum mechanics and the percieved randomness found there and claim that there is in fact real randomness within the universe, but a sober scientist who does not subscribe to the omnicompotence of man’s logic will admit that the percieved randomness of Quantum mechanics is probably due more to an incomplete understanding of the phenomenae within the field than actual randomness so there is at best a tenuous defence of randomness to be found there. In fact the advent of the so-called String Theory was born of the uncomfartable nature of the embracing of chance among Quantum Physicists so we should not assume a unified mind within the scientific community at large concerning the apparent random nature of Quantum Physics.
Apart from things like explosions in the fossil record, the astounding lack of fossil evidence and, quoting Bill Bryson here, the absence of our common ancestors with the other apes, the sheer lack of rationality within neo-Darwinism should be enough to preclude it from serious thought all by itself.
I don’t think anyone had mentioned that yet so I thought I would.
God Bless.
