Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

Yes. I take your third option. I am happy with that. I think it is fully consistent with many non-theistic views of the nature of creation. I too don't believe in 'a' God that designs things. But I also think the vision of life as 'biolchemical fluke' and humans as accidental tourists in a universe that has no inherent purpose is a denial of all philosophy.

Don't you?

To which I should add, I do detect a problem with the OP in this thread. 'Darwinian Theory' is not actually the least bit concerned with problems of 'ontology'. The problem only occurs for those who believe that it is - either positively or negatively.

How is "Darwinian theory just logical positivism overstepping it boundaries?"

I am also unclear to what this necessary a priori actually is. Thus, I would not know where to begin to explain it.

Most of the time when someone says they don't get how evolution can go from an amoebae to present creatures it is a flag stating they have not done squat for research.

But that aside lets just turn it around. If a being created everything, why is there a plausible explanation like evolution? There is loads of evidence linking pretty much all life to a chain of events that can be traced back. If everything just sprang into existence as their current form, wouldn't there be absolutely NO link? Not even a shred of anything remotely traceable?

Those whom make the argument that there is no link or traceable evidence, have either completely ignored all the literature or they are stuck in some ignorant mindset of denial.

So I pose another option. Why couldn't a creator fabricate the universe and it's laws to support evolution as the tool to develop life without needing to interfere? If I were a being creating some complex universe, that is EXACTLY the solution I would go with. I like self sufficient solutions that work themselves out rather than having to tinker and babysit it.

So three possibilities and yet a person is still willing to deny for some reason all the research. It really shouldn't deserve a response.

Hi Richard - I am with you on that. Here are a few random ideas I have been turning over in regard to this.

Take a very good look at Simon Conway Morris. His book, Life's Solution, is directly relevant. I am labouring through it, it is tough going - very technical - but his argument is very sound. Start with the Wikipedia entry.

Second - have a look at this thread. I don't know if it is relevant to what you are thinking about but it might be.

Third - look up the word 'entelechy'. It came to me this morning in relation to all of this. Marvellous word. Let's re-introduce it to the lexicon.

---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 08:24 PM ----------

and another interesting work to look for, from a strictly philosophical perspective (as distinct from my neo-romanticism) is 'Darwinian Fairytales', by David Stove.

To which I should add, I do detect a problem with the OP in this thread. 'Darwinian Theory' is not actually the least bit concerned with problems of 'ontology'. The problem only occurs for those who believe that it is - either positively or negatively.

Darwinian theory is logical positivism overstepping its boundaries because logical positivism is only a philosophy concerning the objective external phenomenal world...

So something which purports to 'explain' life cannot do so from a purely logical positivist standpoint. Necessary a priori, ...

No, I am not saying that from any reason you mean, I am saying that because I fail to understand how anything can evolve in time and space before time and space existed.

Once again, I am not ignoring or denying any research... did you even read my OP? I am only question the actual philosophy behind the assumptions, and the treatment of time and space as things which exist as things in themselves.

I know darwinian theory isnt the least bit concerned with ontological ... nor is bullshit logical positivism as a whole... perhaps it should be?

We know the objective phenomenal world consists of phenomena ie things which dont actually exist as kantian 'things in themselves', they are merely plato's cave shadows.

We know that 'that which transcends space and time' are the noumena - things as they really are, away from platos wall, and outside his cave. Darwinian theory is merely an explanation in reference to the shadows only. That is not good enough for me.

Once again, I am not ignoring or denying any research... did you even read my OP? I am only question the actual philosophy behind the assumptions, and the treatment of time and space as things which exist as things in themselves. We are co creators of our own reality, so how exatly did we evolve into it before we were around to first create it? Care to actually answer my arguments?

Most of the time when someone says they don't get how evolution can go from an amoebae to present creatures it is a flag stating they have not done squat for research.

But that aside lets just turn it around. If a being created everything, why is there a plausible explanation like evolution? There is loads of evidence linking pretty much all life to a chain of events that can be traced back. If everything just sprang into existence as their current form, wouldn't there be absolutely NO link? Not even a shred of anything remotely traceable?

Those whom make the argument that there is no link or traceable evidence, have either completely ignored all the literature or they are stuck in some ignorant mindset of denial.

So I pose another option. Why couldn't a creator fabricate the universe and it's laws to support evolution as the tool to develop life without needing to interfere? If I were a being creating some complex universe, that is EXACTLY the solution I would go with. I like self sufficient solutions that work themselves out rather than having to tinker and babysit it.

So three possibilities and yet a person is still willing to deny for some reason all the research. It really shouldn't deserve a response.

Also, who says God couldn't have created the universe that way? Maybe God wants to tinker a little. Plus, aren't you kind of suggesting that you wouldn't want to "baby-sit" your own child in such a scenario? I should hope my God isn't so callous, hehe.

Sorry to cut you short.

"Darwinian theory" is a scientific theory, and all scientific theories concern themselves with observable facts about reality and the degree to which those facts can be verified and explained by a governing idea - the theory.

So your objection is as valid (or invalid) as an objection to the theory of gravity or electromagnetism or a hundred other scientific theories.

Now you may be happy, through some sort of phenomenological mind game, to assume that it is unwise to assume the theory of gravity has something relevent to tell us about our lives.

However, to state that a scientific theory is "logical positivism overstepping its boundaries" is to misunderstand science.

Science starts with the assumption that observable things teach us something about reality.

To complain about it doing so is a bit like complaining that vermillion is too red, really, or that water's overly liquid.

Again, sorry for the cut.

Why is it necessary to seek a necessary a priori?

What is the a priori for a priori thought?

Is there some sort of basic assumption involved, and why is it a given that that basic assumption is required?

Is a priori thought just solipsism then?

Sure, but to repeat (as I think this is important), science is defined by the assumption that observing phenomena leads to an undrestanding of reality.

So you can question the assumptions by all means, but science is not science without that foundational assumption.

I'd love to see you live your life without the various products of this "bullshit". I would wager you'd grow pretty miserable.

To fetter science by claiming that it "should" concern itself with the ontological is nonsense. It is up to those with a metaphysical appetitie for theological answers to the big questions to either reconcile those beliefs with science or ignore science.

However, too often they demand science adopt some sort of sensitivity to their beliefs, or they lie about science and twist science to some sort of collusion with their beliefs - like Christian Creationists and the like.

But (I know this is getting repetitive, but it's worth bashing into people's heads) science deals with the observable world.

And those who claim evolution is some sort of exception to this are either ignorant of the theory or unable to reconcile their metaphysical desires with science.

SCIENCE is merely an explanation for phenomena. That's how science works. Why single out "Darwinian theory"? Why not "Newtonian" theory, or "Pasteurian" theory or dozens of others?

I seem to me unfair to single out one set of Scientific ideas, facts, principles and the theory that governs them and say that they have to satisfy some sort of phenomenological ideology which the rest of science gets on quite well without.

Yes - everything we think we know might be wrong - pretty much everyone gets that don't they? However, the discoveries of science - which I feel have vastly contributed to my own quality of life and wellbeing - work because they assume reality can be observed.

No, because things like the theory of gravity are relevant because we are here to observe the effects. What is observable about the theory that we all evolved from ameoba?

No. Because it certainly is useful to understand the external phenomenal world. BUT when we are trying to answer mans great questions, the answers cannot be found in reference to the external world only, we must look at the transcendant. Dont yopu agree?

Observing phenomena absolutely leads us to a greater understanding of phenomena, and in fields like medicine, and technology is tremendously useful, but it is not these fields I am talking about. The common ancestory theory, and abiogenesis theories are basically trying to understand the greater question with regard to the phenomenal world only, and I am sorry that is bullshit. This attitude to go back to Plato's cave is basically equivalent to just turning to the wall, intent on eternally convincing yourself that all that exists are the shadows, perhaps because it is easier that way, I dont know.

Well once again I am not questioning the logical positivist attitude if its use isnt well defined and it doesnt overreach itself into area where it has no business.

Absolutely science deals with the observable world, however the statement 'we all evolved from ameoba, and this happened through nothing else than survival' is a mere theory,

and does not deal with anything observable.

I agree it certainly is the 'best fit' picture at the current time, but does that mean I am not allowed to question or enquire?

Because darwinian theory is not JUST refering to the same objective phenomenal world. It is trying to explain life itself, and mind, both of which have to be understood in the transcendental.

There is rational, empirical evidence for intelligent design...

Go ahead, quickly debunk this theory...

I promise if you start with the mouse trap this will be a long and painful process for both of us.

"The problem... is that it's not an argument against anything I've ever said. In my book, I explicitly point out that some of the components of biochemical machines can have other functions. But the issue remains - can you use numerous, slight, successive modifications to get from those other functions to where we are?

"Some of this objection seems a bit silly. Could a component of a mousetrap function as a paperweight? Well, what do you need to be a paperweight? You need mass. You need to exist. An elephant, or my computer, or a stick can be a paperweight. But suppose you go buy a paperweight. What would it look like? Most of them are nondescript, roundish things. None of them look anything like a precursor to a mousetrap. Besides, look at what he's doing: he's starting from the finished product - the mousetrap - and disassembling it and moving a few things around to use them for other puposes. Again, that's intelligent design!

"The question for evolution is not whether you can take a mousetrap and use its parts for something else: it's whether you can start with something else and make it into a mousetrap. The problem for evolutionists is to start with a less complex system and build a more complex system. Even if every component could theoretically have a useful function prior to its assembly into the mousetrap, you'd still have the problem of how the mousetrap becomes assembled."

...

"When people put together a mousetrap, they have the disassembled components in different drawers or something, and they grab one from each drawer and put it together. But in the cell, there's nobody there to do that.

"In molecular machines, components have portions of their shape that are complementary to each other, so they connect with each other in the right way. A positive charge can attract a negative charge, and an oily region can attract another oily region. So if we use the mousetrap as an analogy, one end of the spring would have to have a certain shape or magnetism that just happened to attract and fit with another component of the trap. They'd all have to fit together that way until you had the whole trap assembled by itself.

"In other words, if you just had the components themselves without the ability to bring the toher pieces into position, you'd be far from having a functioning mousetrap. Nobody ever addresses this problem in the evolutionary literature. If you do any calculations about how likely this could occur by itself, you find it's very improbable. Even with the small machines, you wouldn't expect them to self-assemble during the entire life-time of the earth. That's a severe problem that evolutionists don't like to address."

you're a jerk

Some of this objection seems a bit silly. Could a component of a mousetrap function as a paperweight? Well, what do you need to be a paperweight? You need mass. You need to exist. An elephant, or my computer, or a stick can be a paperweight. But suppose you go buy a paperweight. What would it look like? Most of them are nondescript, roundish things. None of them look anything like a precursor to a mousetrap.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge John E. Jones ruled harshly against the scientific validity of intelligent design. Judge Jones ruled that the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, as argued by intelligent design proponents during the trial, was refuted by the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert biology witness, Dr. Kenneth Miller.

Dr. Miller misconstrued design theorist Michael Behe's definition of irreducible complexity by presenting and subsequently refuting only a straw-characterization of the argument.

Accordingly, Miller claimed that irreducible complexity is refuted if a separate function can be found for any sub-system of an irreducibly complex system, outside of the entire irreducible complex system, suggesting the sub-system might have been co-opted into the final system through the evolutionary process of exaptation. However, Miller's characterization ignores the fact that irreducible complexity is defined by testing the ability of the final system to evolve in a step-by-step fashion in which function may not exist at each step.

An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.

Only by reverse-engineering a system to test for function at each transitional stage can one determine if a system has "reducible complexity" or "irreducible complexity."

Oh, and that bit about the fused chromosome? Red herring.