I know you feel very strongly that it is true.
I wonder what Darwin would have thought of the modern synthesis (Julian Huxley) or of Stephen. J Gould’s '“punctuated equilibrium”, revisions of the early theory, mostly in light of Mendel’s findings on genetics.
Deep within existential awareness lie clues to the secrets of evolution. These clues are of a designer. Most atheists I have met neglect these clues in favor of attacks on religious fundamentalism, attacks that stem from personal problems with religion as they have experienced it or from belief that religion in general has always been anti-science. On the one hand there is the lumping of all religions together as if religion itself has never evolved. On the other hand the approximately 150 years of the war between science and religion has rendered only losers on both sides, but science is still credited with all advances of the human race. Attempts to reconcile science and religion are usually met with scoffing and derision from many. atheists.
For me, Thomas Henry Huxley’s agnosticism is a much more honest approach to religion vs science than atheism is.
I always feel strongly to challenge the ignorance of people who just do not know, - that is you in this instance.
It’s not a “revision”. Gould was perfectly aware that he was building on Darwin.
Yes, I see that, but you have to learn to temper your feelings if you wish to attain any level of intellectual proficiency.
Typical infantile reaction.
What was special about Darwin wasn’t any of his general ideas about evolution, which already existed, that is, the gradual changes in animals through generations in response to environmental stimuli, or any of his specific postulates, which have all generally been replaced in mainstream research by more advanced postulates that adhere more closely to the actual behavior of evolutionary change.
What was special about Darwin was his obsessive studiousness of actual evolutionary changes, the level of depth of his anatomical observations in actual instances of evolution, making the theory, though it already existed, undeniable by the main stream of science which had so far succeeded in denying it and making it a fringe field of study. Before Darwin, most evolutionary theorists were essentially hobby botanists.
He also firmly established that changes that occurred during the lifetime of one generation were not inherited by the next, prompting a revival in Mendel’s studies and general acceptance that genetic material, that is, whatever it was that transmitted phenotypes from one generation to the next, was itself not sensitive to external stimuli. The environmental incidence was indirect by way of permitting certain changes to be transmitted, and others not.
This ruled out many possibilities for what it might be that in actuality is what directs the changes themselves in a coherent, evolutionary manner, but it did not itself establish one.
What you do not understand is that passion and intelligence go hand in hand.
Without passion you are dull and passive, learning nothing.
Passion gets you up in the morning and gets you out there on the expedition.
So get out of bed and find something out!
True, but you can’t help it.
Name these “replaced postulates”!
You cannot because you are just making this up as you go along.
Darwin’s theory of evolution did not exist. The mechanism was not understood until He and Wallace published it.
This is simply a misunderstanding oif history.
In fact, one of the main subjects of study in evolutionary theory during Darwin’s time was the repeating patterns in change. These botanists generally disliked Darwin because he stopped that debate cold. Before his book, there were several competing theories regarding these patterns, and some of them got really advanced. But Darwin was a very insecure man, focused solely on proving the truth of evolution to the Royal Society. Anything that couldn’t be meticulously proven was outside his scope of interest. Obviously, when you are simply setting out to find patterns in evolutionary change, brainstorming if you will, it is a very interpretative exercise. Before you actually have a hypothesis, you cannot prove or disprove it.
The fact of evolution was already very obvious to these theorists, so Darwin’s establishment of its truth was relatively meaningless to them.
Darwin didn’t prove how things change. He simply proved that they change.
Read a book.
Hysteria is not generally considered a passion conducive to intellectual advancement.
- A really good point.
Hysteria is not generally considered a passion at all…question mark ??? lots of question marks…
I imagine it is what Darwinism implied that caused his fame. It implied that - “Oh God didn’t ordain it - Nature did it! And that means we can freely manipulate it!”
It seems a little like that argument between determinism and free will - except in reverse.
The temptation of understanding determinism (God ordained) is that all of your faults can be blamed on something/one else - you are free from guilt. The illusion of free will implies that you are to blame for your actions.
With Darwinism the opposite is implied.
The temptation of understanding Darwinism (not God ordained) is that you are free from guilt for messing with nature. And the belief in a God ordained pattern condemns you for violating it.
So of course whichever frees you from guilt most is the one people prefer - unless they believe in God.
What seems to be always left out is - God’s actual role and why you should care.
That really depends on your view of God, I think. Many God fearing people don’t consider Gods to have ordained much. They are part of the world as much as us. That’s the Greek view.
In any case, it is wise to fear the Gods.
Otherwise you are an indolent bag of meat, with no reverence for life or anything in it.
I think, though, that Ierrellus’s argument here is that God/s are or is part of evolution. In any case, involved in it.