St. Thomas & Darwinism (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, March 12, 2011, 14:31 (4984 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > As for the site, this claim is preposterous:
> > 
> > "For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. "
> > 
> > This is a gross mis-characterization. Evolutionary theory says that each generation of an organism is a micro-step towards some future state. Fossils, you, me--all of life living right now at this time are snapshots. We share characteristics, but just as language never stays the same over grand scales of time, neither do genomes, and thus phenotype. 
> > 
> > Further, evolution as described by Pigliucci and other molecular biologists, identify the genome as the organizing principle. This wasn't available to Darwin, but the author conveniently ignores this. If the Central Dogma is true, then all genes map to specific proteins which all should manifest some phenotypical change in an organism. 
> > 
> 
> Yes, to a certain extent I agree with your argument here, and agree that, to a certain extent, the statement from the article is wrong. However, your argument begs a regressing question that makes the argument in the article valid again. 
> "If the Genome is the organizing principle, what was the organizing principle that organized the Genome?" I know that if you argue this back far enough you fall out of the realm of Darwinistic Evolution and into biogenesis and chemical behavior, but as an anti-theist/ID argument they do tend to fall into the same category. That would be the point where the argument posited in the article gains some credibility. IF all life sprang randomly from a chemical cocktail, then saying "..any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle," is no different than saying life emerged here on Earth because of random chance, which is what I think they were driving at; the origins, not necessarily evolution as accepted as a 'after the fact' process, which most theist actually do accept and agree with to a certain extent.-Then I just have to ask that article writers in the future explicitly demarcate where their arguments begin and end; because scientists who study evolution leave the problem of 'where the organizing principle of the genome comes from' out of their field of study--as you say, and truly it is a problem for chemists. -However, the article writers were attacking evolution from a position that is unfair: Evolution explains life. They set up evolution as a straw-man in this manner. "If evolution is true, than matter can transform into any other matter without an organizing principle." The author was either confused or malicious.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"