Germ theory doesn't say anything about those things either, so I guess its a pretty incomplete theory?
And my lawnmower doesn't cook breakfast, so its incomplete?
(Most of the thread seems to be psychobabble. Not my field.)
Coyoteman, we don't ask our lawnmowers to provide an account of the evolution of life (er, species is the standard reductionist term).
If something "evolves," it must be evolving from something, and probably towards something. My conjecture is, that "something" contains (at its origin) the specification of evolutionary potentialities and the context of their development (materials and laws). Just the word "evolve" implies a rational, not a haphazard process. For something to be "rational," it must have a "limit" somewhere. It can't be pure chaos and be "rational": Our universe appears to be lawfully ordered. But a chaos cannot order itself.
Many Darwinists I know seem to think a doctrine can be understood as "equivalent" to natural processes. If you have the right doctrine, you can just squeeze all of nature into it, and it will make perfect sense.
Metaphysics, which as James suggests is about "thinking clearly," enables us to see that we are dealing, however, with two completely different categories in such a situation: articulations in language and articulations in the natural world -- they are not equivalent; no "A = A" obtains here.
This might seem like perfect psychobabble to you. If so, I'm really sorry for that. (Mainly I'm just recapitulating Aristotle here.) It seems to me, the character of evolutionary development may very well depend in some way on the conditions of its origin. It seems to me a "life science" cannot forever dodge this problem.
Darwin's theory is not a theory about the origin of life (or consciousness). I accept that. Though you'd think biology in general would want to come to grips with origins at some point.
At the same time, I notice many people these days making Darwinist evolution theory the linchpin of an entire cosmology that does speculate about the origins of life.... On my view FWIW this is an illegitimate translation from science into fields where it is not appropriate.
Be that as it may, to say that I do not regard Darwin's theory as "complete" should hardly be objectionable. It is the job of science to constantly prepare to find itself in a situation where its "best" theory is overcome by new insights and developments. There have been two earth-shattering revolutions in the physical sciences within the past 100 years; but Darwinism just goes along "unevolved" as it were, as if none of the new physical discoveries are relevant to it.
Don't forget, Darwinist theory is just that: a theory. It is not a law of nature. So it seems to me it is perfectly appropriate to question perceived shortcomings, if only to make our understanding of the relevant problems better and stronger. Especially since as science, Darwinist theory is a tad peculiar in that it is not premised on direct observation and replicable experiments. It is historical in its approach to nature, and is largely intuitive in form.
Well, I don't know where all this leaves us. But I'm so very glad to hear from you, Coyoteman!