Steverino
Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Kinda OT here....Looking for a critique of this:
| Quote | In nineteenth century England, Charles Darwin provided a mechanism for this theory (descent with modification), though he did not reference Epicurus. He also had deep theological and personal problems with the question of evil and suffering. Like many of his peers in the Enlightenment, had a very poor grasp of the Bible on this subject, and thus moved away from believing that the God of the Bible was good.
But Darwin did something profoundly dishonest as he changed the terms of the debate to suit his presuppositions:
“The homological construction of the whole frame in the members of the same class is intelligible, if we admit their descent from a common progenitor, together with their subsequent adaptation to diversified conditions. On any other view the similarity of pattern between the hand of a monkey, the foot of a horse, the flipper of a seal, the wing of a bat, etc., is utterly inexplicable (The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 31).
First, Darwin changed the language away from “morphology” to “homology.” Morphology is “the branch of biology dealing with the form and structure of organisms.” But homology, though also a biological term, is rooted in the philosophical assumption of “a fundamental similarity based on common descent.”
In other words, morphology describes things the way they are – different species all have the similarity of having “digits” in their bone structures. This is straightforward science. But homology presupposes that these similarities are due to a common organic source – i.e., it presupposes the theory of macroevolution. This is philosophy.
Second, Darwin would not admit any counter theory to be explored. Indeed, for his whole professional life he was arguing against the long-standing idea of a “common Designer,” as articulated in his age by William Paley and others. So when Darwin says that “any other view … is utterly inexplicable,” he never identifies the view he was challenging, thus not being accountable to its argument.
Had he been honest, he would have stated the arguments for the two competing views side by side, then argued why his theory was better:
Common Designer – morphological similarities are there because a Designer knew that various forms of life need their respective types of digits to function.
Common descent – morphological similarities are there because they evolved from a common organic source, all the way up to mankind (the argument with which Darwin concluded Descent).
But he did not. The problem for Darwin was this – whereas his theory could have some logical ability given its starting point, he still could not rise above the logic of the Epicurean swerve. He would not look at the question of origins. Where did the first living cell come from? And this leads us to the debate over “intelligent design,” which is merely current language for a “common Designer.” It has always been the same debate that Darwin would not honestly admit or confront head-on.
|
Is this guy speaking out of his ass??? My assumption is yes.
--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!
|
