Evolutionists Have a Brand New Theory

_{Cornelius Hunter

August 17, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

For a theory that is supposed to be scientific, and therefore not teleological, evolution certainly does have its share of Aristotelian commitments. In fact, the Philosopher seems to be present at every turn in evolutionary thought. Consider the latest thinking from evolutionists—a brand new theory formulated to replace the last brand new theory which, not surprisingly, failed just as badly as the previous theories. The new one is called the extended evolutionary synthesis. First there was evolution. Then there was the evolutionary synthesis. Now there is the extended evolutionary synthesis. Well at least this one affords evolutionists a three-letter acronym. Here is how evolutionists describe it (as usual, watch for the infinitive form): Read more

Comments

"i'm not at all convinced that “evolution,” (aka random mutation natural selection) even happens at all — ever." Amen brother, I'm with you Vh:) I did not do a thorough job summarizing this important paper to say the least. I mean, guided evolution yikes.ppolish_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

ppolish...I would agree with all of those except for number 6. I'm not at all convinced that "evolution," (aka random mutation natural selection) even happens at all -- ever. The so-called cases of "micro-evolution" are actually just cases of top-down, responsive, reactive, regulated, nonrandom, purposeful, quick adaptations within individuals (and their developing embryos) that get triggered by the environment. Whenever the term "evolution" is used, be it micro or macro, the implication is that the darwinian mechanism (RMNS) is responsible. I won't say it never happens, but if it does happen it seems to be very rare.vh_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Oops, my point 6 should read 6) macro controlled macro instead of macro controlled by micro. This whole paper looks like a retreat from the fine tuning discovered at the molecular level. Can no longer be considered chance. Retreating from flagellum tails and focusing on monkeys tails.ppolish_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

1) Reciprocal Causation instead of Natural Selection... 2) Inclusive Inheritance instead of Genetic... 3) Non-Random Phenotypic Variation instead of Random Genetic.... 4) Variable instead of Gradualism... 5) Organism Centered instead of Gene Centered... 6) Micro Evo instead of Macro Evo.... 7) ID instead of Evo Design.... Ok, I added number 7:) Several "Third Way Evolutionists" on the author list of the proceeding. No Dawkins, no Coyne.ppolish_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

vh Exactly. We read about how evolution made 'stunning advances' in our understanding over the years. But Darwinism was advancing in the wrong direction - moving farther from the truth. Materialism has done the same from its beginning.Silver Asiatic_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Box
Fine, but this is holism pure and simple! This is downward-causation: the whole (the organism) organizes its parts. Again, I’m perfectly fine with this, but let’s be clear about one thing: holism, and therefor EES, is UTTERLY INCOMPATIBLE with materialism.
This would point to the organism itself as some kind of fundamental element, capable of organizing itself and needing information to define itself. This is stronger evidence for ID.Silver Asiatic_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

And all these top down mechanisms of quick, adaptive change have to have an explanation; how does just the right trait appear at just the the right time for a specific purpose? Shapiro is right: all biological mechanisms are under regulation, even mutations. But regulated by what? Who or what is the organizer? How does the whole body seem to be on the same page? I'd say the answer is consciousness. Or life. Or mind over matter. Or whatever you want to call it. But whatever it is, it's miraculous and akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat, the very thing materialist evolutionists have been trying to avoid. So basically they are again having to ape our theory and borrow from our theory and worldview to help prop their silliness up. Aka: the magic evolved.vh_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

The EES regards the genome as a sub-system of the cell designed by evolution to sense and respond to the signals that impinge on it. Organisms are not built from genetic ‘instructions’ alone, but rather self-assemble using a broad variety of inter-dependent resources. Even where there is a history of selection for plasticity, the constructive development perspective entails that prior selection underdetermines the phenotypic response to the environment.
Okay, so EES constitutes a departure from a "gene-centered" view on the organism — goodbye selfish gene. EES offers the "organism" as causal force instead: the organism self-assembles and uses resources. Fine, but this is holism pure and simple! This is downward-causation: the whole (the organism) organizes its parts. Again, I'm perfectly fine with this, but let's be clear about one thing: holism, and therefor EES, is UTTERLY INCOMPATIBLE with materialism.Box_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply