At bottom, the problem I have with Darwinist theory is the way in which it has been appropriated by other thinkers.
I have seen this a lot today in particular. I am still trying to determine how a theory is used somehow invalidates it. I mean, muslim use guns, so does that make guns inherently bad? Jim Jones quoted the Bible -- does that invalidate the Bible?
What Huxley, Haeckel, and Marx have in common is they are all radical materialists who utterly reject any possibility of transcendence in reality: random mutation + natural selection essentially boils down to its unstated initial premise, that “matter in all its motions is all that there is.”
The instated premise is "matter (and energy) in all its motions is all we can observe." The "all there is" part is a theological conclusion, not a scientific one.
In short, Darwinist evolutionary theory has had some rather stunning social effects that Darwin himself most probably did not intend or anticipate. And manifestly, political effects, too
In this you are right, but so was the Magna Carta, Sun Tsu's The Art Of War, the publication of Newton's theories, Ptolomy's map, etc. etc. etc.
We do need to recognize that “logos” on the one hand, and “random mutation + natural selection” according to “chance and necessity” on the other, are mutually irreconcilable concepts: They are totally “non-isomorphic.”
This is not true (although it sounds great). The ability to reason and think can be seen as a very strong necessity to survive. You confuse higher thinking of today with the more slow process of "if I touch the fire I burn my hand" to "if I burn my hand I can use fire to burn other things" to "why does fire burn my hand?" But stepwise it went
Your elegant post implicitly brings up on point that is external to Evolution and Darwin: To what end?
This is applying the evolved logos to the existence of logos (i.e. self-awareness). A meta-question which defines Modern Man.
That, my dear, is a theological question, not a scientific one.
These last few posts have been way over my head, and my intelligence, as I am really having a hard time understanding what all of you are discussing...but I have latched onto one statement made by Betty Boop and repeated by Freedumb2003 "At bottom, the problem I have with Darwinist theory is the way in which it has been appropriated by other thinkers."....When Freedumb2003 brought up the example of how Jim Jones quoted the Bible, and yet correctly asserts, can this then invalidate the Bible?, he makes a tremendous point...
This hit especially home to me, because you see, Jim Jones, actually had his Temple, in Redwood Valley California, just down the road from my aunt and uncle...who for themselves saw the destructive nature of Jim Jones temple, and how he perverted the Bible for his own use, and saw many of their neighbors and those who followed Jones from their previous location, misled...no one in their full senses should blame this whole situation on the Bible, what Jones did was a horrible and terrible perversion of the Bible, for his own selfish use...
So, I just dont see how Darwin, can be held accountable for how anyone else used his writings...it makes no sense...people often write of things which they believe to be true, should they then be held accountable for anyone who might try to twist and pervert those writings to suit their own purpose?...I dont think so...I think its important to actually read what Darwin did say, to be firm in what in what he said, and then should someone else try to pervert the meanings in those writings for his own purpose, the informed reader can see those perversions for what they are...
If I write something, based on my observations, and then form my own conclusions, and then someone else reads it, and then uses what I say, but tilts it, whether a little or
a lot, to suit their own purpose, am I then responsible for how that reader perverted what I said?..I dont think so...
Darwin said what he said, he wrote what he wrote...if others chose to take that, and used it to suit their own purpose, how is that Darwins fault?