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...
John B. Cobb Jr., ed. , Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution Reviewed by
Philosophy in Review, 2009
Often fascinating, often frustrating, this is a hefty-and unfortunately unindexed-anthology on evolution and religion, distinguished by its emphasis on process thought, the philosophical-cum-theological approach to metaphysics based on the writings of Whitehead. As Cobb, himself a pioneer of process theology, explains, the purpose of the book (and of the conference on which it was based) is 'to introduce a Whiteheadian voice into the present discussion of evolution and religion' and to indicate 'the way in which a theistic evolutionary theory can be coherently developed from a Whiteheadian point of view' (17-18). Not all of the contributors are invested, or even particularly interested, in process thought, but the volume is editorially shaped in such a way as to present 'one long argument' (to borrow Darwin's phrase) for the importance of process thought for understanding evolution, scientifically as well as theologically. Cobb challenges what he takes to be three dubious claims: that contemporary evolutionary theory is scientifically adequate, that the metaphysics presupposed in contemporary scientific practice is philosophically adequate, and that both of these are theologically adequate for 'a revised formulation of theology' (311)-that is, a formulation along the Whiteheadian lines he favors. In so doing, he is seeking to integrate science and theology in a way that may require revisions not only to theology but also to science; he is thus rejecting, in the familiar typology offered by Ian Barbour, the alternative positions on which science and theology are regarded as in conflict, as independent, and as in dialogue. On none of these points, too, are all the contributors in agreement with Cobb, as he acknowledges, but it is fair to judge the volume's success in terms of the success of his ambitious project. In reacting against contemporary evolutionary theory, Cobb's argument finds a foil in what he calls neo-Darwinism, here represented in person by Francisco Ayala. A student of Dobzhansky and a formidable scientist in his own right, Ayala is also a former Dominican priest with a doctoral degree in theology; he favors the independence position in Barbour's typology. His main contribution to this collection is 'From Paley to Darwin: Design to Natural Selection', but he also furnishes four subsidiary essays on various subjects. In all, about a generous seventh of the book is Ayala's, although anyone wanting to understand his views will probably be better served by reading his Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion (2007). He devotes a few salient pages to the term 'neo-Darwinism', observing that it 'has little currency among evolutionary biologists' and seems to be 'mostly confined to the writings of philosophers and theologians' (53). As if to prove him right, neo-Darwinism turns out to be the philosophical and theological bogey of the volume. David Ray Griffin, for example, identi
Methodological Naturalism & Darwinian Metaphysics
2020
The purpose of this essay is twofold: 1) expose the deficiency of Methodological Naturalism as a hermeneutical tool, and (2) analyze the metaphysical assumptions of evolutionary theory such as theological optimality, biological suboptimality, and the “Greater God” argument.
Prebiotic world, macroevolution, and Darwin���s theory: a new insight
2009
Darwin's main contribution to modern biology was to make clear that all history of life on earth is dominated by a simple principle, which is usually summarised as 'descent with modification'. However, interpretations about how this modification is produced have been controversial. In light of the data provided by recent studies on molecular biology, developmental biology, genomics, and other biological disciplines we discuss, in this paper, how Darwin's theory may apply to two main 'types' of evolution: that occurring in the prebiotic world and that regarding the acquisition of major keyinnovations differentiating higher-taxa, which makes up part of the so-called macroevolution. We argue that these studies show that evolution is a fascinating, complex and multifaceted process, with different mechanisms drivin it on different occasions and in different places.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Part III: Consequences for Philosophy
2010
W E ARE NOW at the last stage of our survey of Darwin’s theory of evolution. We have presented the study of his theory and its application, and followed its subsequent development in several directions. Now is the time to study the importance of his theory for philosophy and sociology. For While in the field of philosophy the import of his theory has remained far from properly understood, in the field of sociology it has been subject to the widest possible types of misapprehension, misinterpretation and misapplication. Let us see how. One by one. A large number of scholars have thoroughly studied Darwin’s Notebooks written on the morrow of his return from the Beagle journey in order to follow the course of his intellectual development. It is more or less universally acknowledged that during that period he gradually discarded his longheld beliefs in Christianity and turned towards an atheistic viewpoint (although he preferred to use the polite term ‘agnostic’ to the aggressive term ‘...