Darwinism. A Critique (original) (raw)
Metaphysics and Evolution: Response to Critics
Studia Gilsoniana, 2021
is to be more than a venerated relic, we must follow Aquinas in engaging contemporary issues. Thus, it was gratifying to see Fr. Michał Chaberek, O.P., consider evolution from a Thomist perspective. 1 Unfortunately, three crucial errors marred his analysis. 2 First, he has an ultra-realist view of species. Second, he misunderstands Darwin's motivation, principles and conclusions. Third, he fails to see that metaphysics is too abstract to critique evolution. Responding to these issues led to reflections on the problem of universals, the nature of species, and the division of sciences in St. Thomas's Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius. With regard to universals, I suggested that moderate realists can define species in alternate ways by fixing upon diverse aspects of organisms' intelligibility. This was insufficiently explained. My projective realism sees us as approaching reality from multiple perspectives
From Darwinian Metaphysics towards Understanding the Evolution of Evolutionary Mechanisms
2012
This work proposes and elaborates a philosophy of nature that, although influenced by Darwinism, aims ultimately to transcend Darwinism. My particular focus is on two purified versions of Darwinism: gene-Darwinism and process-Darwinism. The essential claims of these two approaches are first explicated and then subjected to criticism. This elaborated critique is not exogeneous to Darwinism, proposing another philosophy of nature from the outset; instead an immanent critique is developed, starting from within the investigated Darwinian paradigms. Focussing on internal inconsistencies of these paradigms, reveals tendencies that will lead us beyond Darwinism.But not only theories can transcend themselves, the central claim of this work is that Nature, due to inner or outer necessities, continually transcends itself, not only in its products but in its evolutionary mechanisms. As theories are moulded not only by external forces, but by inherent tendencies as well (where the rules of change may sometimes depend on the theory itself), also evolution may depend on evolved evolutionary mechanisms.
Studia Gilsoniana, 2019
The author makes an attempt to show why (1) Darwin’s teaching in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex cannot be “scientific” in a modern, classical, or any, sense and that, consequently, in them, (2) Darwin did not scientifically prove the reality of evolution of species. He claims that, while the question of the origin of genera and species is principally and primarily a metaphysical problem, Darwin’s ignorance of the nature of philosophy and metaphysics and the complexity of the problem of the nature of genera and species caused him mistakenly to frame this metaphysical problem as one of physics, more precisely as one of biology, which Darwin reduced to a natural history of living, physical beings.
We do not live in Darwin's world, 2023
Evolution as a process developing the earth from a dead block of stone to this living, thriving planet through the work of living beings, microbes, plants and animals is a fact that cannot be denied regarding the findings and knowledge of modern science. But it is also evident, if you take a deeper look into the details, that a constructive process of such magnitude could not be accomplished by destructive principles like Darwin’s “war of nature” and “battle of life”. The pivotal element, the secret of success of nature, was and is cooperation – on all levels of being. Darwin’s hypothesis (as he himself called it) starts from a wrong basic assumption, describes a process of species change that is inconsistent with logic and to date still unproven, even if it is always claimed to be. And the Neo-Darwinian view that has replaced Darwin’s original concept is a totally watered-down surrogate of the origin, a deceptive package so to say, be-cause it has dismissed the basic assumptions of the author. And also, it becomes clear for an attentive observer, that the vast variety of beauty, ecological brightness, ingenious inventions and sustainable systems of nature cannot be explained just by random mutations, natural selection, chance and need. There must be assumed an overwhelming creative intelligence behind every component of the universe, from subatomic particles to gigantic galaxy clusters. This was not only advocated by philosophers or theologians but also by prestigious natural scientists like Max Planck and Al-bert Einstein, the latter admitting that he was a supporter of pantheism, meaning that every-thing is out of God and within God as an aspect of the divine. That this view inevitably arises from logical consideration will also be examined in this paper as well as the consequences that arise hereby for our evolutionary contribution to the process of life on earth.
The Compatibility of Evolution and Classical Metaphysics
Studia Gilsoniana, 2020
The compatibility of evolution with Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics is defended in response to Fr. Michal Chaberek's thesis of incompatibility. The motivation and structure of Darwin's theory are reviewed, including the roles of secondary causality, randomness and necessity. "Randomness" is an analogous term whose evolutionary use, while challenging, is fully compatible with theism. Evolution's necessity derives from the laws of nature, which are intentional realities, the vehicle of divine providence. Methodological analysis shows that metaphysics lacks the evidentiary basis to judge biological theories. Species are entia rationis whose immutability does not conflict with the evolutionary succession of biological populations. While Darwin's theory was unknown to Aquinas, he endorses the possibility of new species immanent in the initial state of the universe, nor does his understanding of exemplar ideas offer ground for objection. Finally, five argument...
1992
Artificial Life is, by its nature, an interdisciplinary research programme; it will involve biologists, of course, but also philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, computer scientists-and perhaps even (as in my case) engineers. Success in our endeavours will require some of us, at least, to venture into foreign territory. This essay is a log of my personal expedition into evolutionary biology. I attempt to provide a comprehensive review of Darwinism in the biological world, and to do so as an outsider-a non-professional in the field. My purpose is twofold. Firstly, I hope that real biologists may take this opportunity to correct at least the worst of my errors. Secondly, I offer this to other non-specialists as a sort of map-a record of my particular exploration. I hope it might at least provide some insight into the kinds of questions which need to be asked, even if the particular answers suggested here are less than satisfactory. Above all, I want to convince any who may be in doubt that Darwinism encompasses a complex and subtle system of interrelated theories, whose substantive transplantation to any artificial medium will be very far from easy. This essay draws on abstract concepts introduced in a previous essay (McMullin 1992); the two essays are therefore best read in conjunction.
A perspective on (neo-)Darwinism (2010) 1
A perspective on (neo-)Darwinism first of all has to account for those assumptions derived from the humanities, causing neo-Darwinism not to be a purely special scientific or natural scientific theory. A discussion of the many-sidedness of living entities highlights the difficulties surrounding a definition of biology. Attention is briefly given to the physicalism of Darwin's 1859 work before the quest for origins is discussed. These considerations pave the way for an assessment of striking shortcomings in the thought of Darwin and his followers. In particular modern nominalism is identified as an important source for neo-Darwinism, especially manifest in the idea that organisms are not types and do not have types (Simpson). Darwin's idea of incremental (continuous) change both in respect of the genesis of a complex organ (or the origination of the first living entity) and of successive fossil forms contradict the current state of affairs -and the same applies to his own radical idea that "injurious" variations will be eliminated immediately by natural selection, for it cannot be reconciled to the role of mutations in neo-Darwinian theory. In addition neo-Darwinian paleontologists pointed out that evolution requires intermediate forms and paleontology does not provide them (Kitts) and explicitly confessed that they have paid lip-service to the idea of change while they knew all the time that it was not true (Eldredge): the dominant theme of the paleontological record is stasis, constancy -a type appears and remains constant for millions of years before it disappears (Gould). The supposition of incremental continuity received a further blow