What it does is what it Is

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.

Which is a different case than the old Aristotelian argument of the Prima Causa. And certainly different from the type of intelligent design that contradicts the possibility of evolution. Or even Leibniz’s perfect synchronization.

I think there is an understanding that combines both of those concerns (Ierrellus’s and Aristotle’s) but gets left out in the arguments - probably because it doesn’t take sides.

That’s what was nice about the era when the rebels were the Freemasons. At least they postulated a God. But it was hopelessly artificial.

Well that’s pretty much what Leibniz postulated, a kind of combination. That God set everything in motion, the Prima Causa, but at the same time was constantly active, the perfect synchronization. That’s not what I understand Ierrellus as saying.

That suddenly tossed me back into the physics of psychology - so maybe I should just drop it.

Ok.

Yes, and because of the antisemitism of the Germans, because they wanted an all-controlling being that did generate the world, they were very happy when they discovered Hinduism.

Hinduism, of course, lacking all the nobility of Judaism. But they were able to convolutedly postulate that they were the same ‘race’ as the Hindus, so their racist instinct was satisfied.

My opinion on creation is that God was the prime mover prior to the advent of humans with brains, but is totally involved in the physical to mental evolution that characterizes humans, that within this evolution the idea of what God is emerged. This idea is a recognition of the God within us–God’s handiwork and being. Evidence of a creative and caring God can be found in ecological biosystems–the fact that we are in and of a Nature that can sustain life.
I do agree that the basic random and fortuitous concept of natural development frees one from guilt of what we owe to others or to nature itself. Beliefs from this idea excuse exploitation of nature, since they free one from guilt. The planet currently suffers from such exploitation. This is the only living planet we know of, yet we are wasting its resources as if there will not be a reckoning. We are in and of Nature–in and of God. We are responsible for the care of the planet and for each other. Without God the Ego is God.