Philosophy Discussion Forums

Anthony Edgar:

For example, the big issues in evolutionary biology (aka atheist theology) revolve around ideas of speciation - that can't be tested, so there's no way of being certain about of any of it.


Macroevolutionary predictions serve only to support macroevolution theory (ie, atheist theology), but otherwise have no use in the real world.

In early November I posted the following. You never addressed it but started making the same spurious claims again.

#233


So, if I understand you accept microevolution as a fact but reject macroevolution. What do you think the difference is? Is it based on the notion of species as kinds? See below.


Wiki provides the following references regarding examples of speciation from its article on macroevolution. Each is available by copying and pasting the title is a search engine:


Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years". Evolution. 47 (6): 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209. JSTOR 2410209.
*Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.). 19 (3): 111–4. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.008. PMID 16701238.
*Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
*Kirkpatrick, Mark; Virginie Ravigné (March 2002). "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments". The American Naturalist. 159 (3): S22–S35. doi:10.1086/338370. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 3078919. PMID 18707367.




As to the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, from wiki article on speciation:


One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that "macroevolution" is qualitatively different from "microevolution" within species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and developmental patterning... Genetic studies of species differences have decisively disproved [this] claim. Differences between species in morphology, behavior, and the processes that underlie reproductive isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species: they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide sequences. The degree of reproductive isolation between populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations.
— Douglas Futuyma, "Evolutionary Biology" (1998)




In other words, if you accept microevolution then you accept macroevolution. As noted in the same article:


Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by the vast majority of[24] scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics dismiss any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".




If you are going to dispute scientific claims you must do so using the language of those claims.

I just read the OP and the last two pages of discussion...

Before I get into my commentary, I just want to point out who and what opened Darwin's eyes and what was the framework/prior-art that set the stage for his theory of evolution :
Darwin
"With the aim of becoming a clergyman Darwin went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature."

Whereas you will find scores of people who religiously praise Darwin and his work and seemingly get confused as to its theist overtones and attributions to a designer of the design, seldom do you find someone familiar w/ William Paley's work.

Further, Darwin was found to be in a constant flux :
"Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver,[10][11] and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated,[12] and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters.[7]"

" This convinced Charles and encouraged his interest in science.[25] He later wrote "I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley's Natural Theology: I could almost formerly have said it by heart."[26]"

Theism (design/designer/God) are at the heart of Darwin's work and Evolution. This is not debatable as they are the words/reflections of Charles Darwin and is the clear root of contentious work on the subject.

'purposeless purpose', 'designerless design'
This concept is foolishness and it is appalling that this is not self-evident to "educated"/scientific stewards in search of 'truth'.

Let me set right out at the heart of why it's foolish :
There exists a system design made of immutable objects that has no chance or capability for evolving.
There also exists a system design made of mutable objects that have the capability and chance of evolving.

Given two options, a choice thus exists as to why to create one system over another.
A choice exists among infinite degrees of information/potential before the system is designed and manifested.

A designer makes that choice, decides on the design, decides on the possibilities, decides on the laws, etc before
the system is designed and manifested.

Thus the phrase 'There is nothing new under the sun' which is a biblical quote :

Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
The deepness and significance of this meaning seems to have gone over many people's heads.
So, there is no such thing as 'purposeless purpose'. If the designer decided to have a system without purpose it would be a system without purpose. Purpose does not arrive from Purposeless as a purposeless system has no capability to have purpose. A designerless design is without perception as perception is of a design from a point of view within a design.

Characteristics of the design/designer and Purpose
Accepting both of these points, whether people admit it or not, here we are 16 pages in centered on a debate about the design/designer and its characteristics and purpose.

Before I delve into this, I want to reflect that I and everyone else is with severe limit and lack of complete understanding to comment fully on this subject matter. This truth/realization should temper anyone's adherence to strict beliefs as it is something that one must journey an infinite degree to fully encompass and were all still on that journey.

Now, with that disclaimer voiced....

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create harmartia: I the LORD do all these things.

Original Word: חָטָא
chata: to miss, go wrong, sin
hamartia
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chata
Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-taw')
Short Definition: sinned

hamartía (a feminine noun derived from 1 /A "not" and 3313 /méros, "a part, share of") – properly, no-share ("no part of"); loss (forfeiture) because not hitting the target; sin (missing the mark).

266 /hamartía ("sin, forfeiture because missing the mark") is the brand of sin that emphasizes its self-originated (self-empowered) nature – i.e. it is not originated or empowered by God (i.e. not of faith, His inworked persuasion, cf. Ro 14:23).

On deep reflection, these words speak to the elusive nature of the 'design' that has everyone all worked up. It's laid out right there for you to understand.

This design is the design. It simply is. All such possibilities and manifestations are true to it.
The design is thus agnostic to good/evil as it is truth/word made manifest.

The ways and paths are provided through the design.
Man took it upon themselves to deviate beyond the one true path and thus are living out the conscious possibilities of the 'other paths'.. the missing of the mark.

These 'other paths' are the greyness beyond black and white.
The illusion. The confusion. The lack of wholeness which science is in search of. The Grand Unified Theory. The Design. The one true path.

So, here we are trying to find our way 'back'.
What path will you chose? What will you create? What will you manifest? What rules will you live by?
What then should you be resigned to ultimately if not but your own creation?

Seems fair. Seems true. End-to-end. Recursive Designer/Design.
Purpose.

A far cry from a purposeless/designerless system.

There are many more 'revelations' that go beyond this which speak to the levels of infinity of the design.
However, they are with cause/consequence in a universe ruled as such and that's not something you want to go recklessly chasing after nor is it something that is recklessly dispensed.

At any given moment, everything is in its right place and true.

1i3i6--:

Theism (design/designer/God) are at the heart of Darwin's work and Evolution.

Where do we find a designer in the pages of Darwin’s work?

Fooloso4 wrote:1i3i6--:

Theism (design/designer/God) are at the heart of Darwin's work and Evolution.

Where do we find a designer in the pages of Darwin’s work?

Where do we find a designer in the pages of a Book about Watch design and watch making?
I already covered your inquiry in my previous post.

There is no such thing as designerless design.
Design necessitates and reflects a designer.

Did you read my post? Did its meaning go over your head? Re-read it. If you disagree, state what you disagree with and why. Please don't inquire about something I have already answered. It reflects more on you than me.

1i3i6--:

I already covered your inquiry in my previous post.

You referenced Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, and Romans, but not Darwin's writings.

Did you read my post? Did its meaning go over your head? Re-read it.

How about you drop the condescending attitude? It is a basic principle of reading that when one makes claims about a text he must be able to back it up with evidence from the text. A commentary on a text involves a close reading of the actual text. You have said nothing about Darwin’s texts. Rather than attending to Darwin you give a hackneyed argument for design.

You can not make the claim that:

Theism (design/designer/God) are at the heart of Darwin's work and Evolution.

and be taken seriously if you completely ignore his writings.

Fooloso4 wrote: You referenced Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, and Romans, but not Darwin's writings.

My post is broken up into three parts as indicated by three bold red themes. I referenced Darwin's writing and even quoted him in the bold red theme Darwin but instead of referencing that you chose to reference a different section and ignored reference even to what the quoted text reflected on. Now, what this glaring oversight reflects is potentially your intent. Try again. The maneuvering is not working.

Fooloso4 wrote: How about you drop the condescending attitude? It is a basic principle of reading that when one makes claims about a text he must be able to back it up with evidence from the text. A commentary on a text involves a close reading of the actual text. You have said nothing about Darwin’s texts. Rather than attending to Darwin you give a hackneyed argument for design.

I referenced Darwin's work, his beliefs, and even quoted him in the section Darwin. Your continual attempts to ignore the words of Darwin himself reflect on you not me. My comments to you was an honest inquiry as to whether or not you were capable of basic comprehension. Obviously you are. So, you're more or less choosing to ignore Darwin's own quoted words on the subject because they are seemingly causing a conflict within you that you aren't seeking to deal with. This reflects a psychological issue not a philosophical or scientific argument. So, don't insult my intelligence by acting as if I don't see through this intentional omission and charade.

You had two chances to represent yourself and your position. Yet, you kept hand waving about something else that was said.

Fooloso4 wrote: You can not make the claim that:
"Theism (design/designer/God) are at the heart of Darwin's work and Evolution."


and be taken seriously if you completely ignore his writings.

You cannot claim to be of honest intent when you ignore Darwin's work and his quoted commentary about his theistic beliefs and Anglican theological influence. So, what you have clearly demonstrated is that you aren't aiming to seek understanding or truthfully represent Darwin. I know Darwin's works quite well and I also know of his beliefs, influences, and inspirations for evolutions as they have been detailed by him and in numerous Autobiographies.

It is you who is ignoring that. So, I'm done with this pointless song and dance.
If you were with grounding you would have presented quotes or citations in the manner that I have in support of my assertions. You have not. You have only detailed empty inquiries that have already been answered, re-asserted them, and then told yourself that you with grounding. You are not with grounding.

Good Day

1i3i6--:

So, you're more or less choosing to ignore Darwin's own quoted words on the subject because they are seemingly causing a conflict within you that you aren't seeking to deal with.

Did I miss something? I see where you quote an unnamed source who references Darwin to the effect that he was ambivalent about belief in God. Even if he did believe in God that is not the same as believing that evolution is the work of a divine watchmaker or that theism (design/designer/God) are at the heart of Darwin's work. So, my question stands, where in his work do we find these claims?

It has nothing to do with a conflict within me. As I have read him he does not support the idea of a designer. The revolutionary force of the theory is precisely that it does not require a designer. If this is wrong so be it. The problem is not that I cannot accept this but that you have not provided textual evidence to support a designer.

The case is somewhat analogous to Newton. Although Newton stated that he wished to demonstrate the hand of God at work, the fact of the matter is God plays no role in his Principia. We cannot conclude that the hand of God plays a part in his physics based on the fact that he clearly believed in God. Analogously, we cannot conclude that God plays a part in evolution even though Darwin might have believed in God.

1i3i6-- (unusual name)

The Theory of Evolution is not a personality cult centred around Charles Darwin. Like any theory it is judged on the extent to which it is consistent with evidence, not on the motivations of one of its historical discovers.

Albert Einstein never work socks. Or so I've read. I don't judge the Theory of General Relativity with reference to that fact.

Dolphin42 wrote:1i3i6-- (unusual name)

The Theory of Evolution is not a personality cult centred around Charles Darwin. Like any theory it is judged on the extent to which it is consistent with evidence, not on the motivations of one of its historical discovers.

Albert Einstein never work socks. Or so I've read. I don't judge the Theory of General Relativity with reference to that fact.

Many people seem to behave as such nonetheless and incorrectly assign attributes that are not found in Darwin's work.
Darwin's work centered on Evolution defines a process, reflects on a clearly apparent design, and highlights a purpose and tendency of life/nature.
Darwin's work is in no way an end-all-be-all with regards to an observable process, its reflections are not complete and the scope of the purpose that Darwin touched on is not complete. Evolution fits into a much large framework. A framework that was touched upon by William Paley that asserts eloquently a designer and a design. Darwin's work went into define and detail, as best he could this design.

Darwin's The Origin of Species is a subsetted detailing of a large framework detailed by William Paley in "Natural theology or evidences of the existence and attributes of the deity (collected from the appearance of nature)". Darwin himself gives credit to its influence. As it is a subset, I do indeed draw attention and rightfully so the large framework that it fits in.

In comparison, your analogistic reference to Einstein wearing socks in no way reflects the relationship that I have detailed.

The design as I have stated quite logically necessitates a designer. Prominent individuals before Darwin detailed this in a framework for which Darwin picked a subset on a belief that a design existed and detailed that design in The Origin of Species. Barren in any response is a refutal of this logic which I went into detail about.
The responses are psychological attempts to wiggle out of logical, philosophical, and scientific arguments.

I see it for what it is. I am not fooled or perturbed by such misdirected commentary. So, if you want to respond to my original post on this topic or refute anything that I proposed feel free. You can start by reading William Paley's work like many prominent philosophers and scientist have and conclude what they do not conclude which is that its a framework that Darwin's theory of evolution is a subset of.

Or the handwaving and analogies can continue to fly to try to avoid a more serious, logical, philosophical, and scientific matter.

Darwin wrote:

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man.
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1, page 133.

Fooloso4 wrote:Darwin wrote:

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man.
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1, page 133.

Darwin later wrote that he was convinced that he "could have written out the whole of the Evidences with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid." -
Darwin, Charles (1958), Barlow, Nora, ed., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his granddaughter Nora Barlow, London: Collins, retrieved 4 November 2008

He later wrote "I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley's Natural Theology: I could almost formerly have said it by heart." -
"Darwin Correspondence Project – Letter 2532 – Darwin, C. R. to Lubbock, John, (22 Nov 1859)".

We can play this quoting game all day long. With one hand he praised Paley with the other he called it nonsense.
As anyone knows, Darwin was in constant conflict with his findings, influences, and work along with being in conflict with himself.

Nonetheless, hardly a shining example of an athiest who didn't believe in God. His theory of evolution rooted in a design and designer. His theory of evolution full of facts, theories, and flaws.. Man's opening attempt at understanding a deeper design with much room to go. Given all of the theist influences he praised, how they clearly reflect in his work, and how creation/intelligent design and thus designer screams from his guarded words 'common progenitor', I am with firm foundation for the commentary I have provided.

Yet, a quote selectively is lazily thrown up as if it refutes what I said. Above are two quotes in response which support my commentary.
We can play quote games all day long. Darwin was full of contradictions and his work was hardly original w.r.t to the framework it was subset by.

Darwin's work is a subset of a much larger framework which great minds dared define.
As there are no attempts being made to have a discussion at a higher level, this concludes my participation in this thread.

In closing :
"It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change." - Charles Darwin

1i3i6:

Darwin later wrote that he was convinced that he "could have written out the whole of the Evidences with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid." -

That was earlier, while he was still in school.

charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk ... age-08.asp

He liked the logic and clear exposition of Paley’s argument. As with Euclid it was a matter of what followed from the premises. But about those premises the passage continues:

I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust, I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation.

That is, his admiration had nothing to do with the premises of Paley's argument. Premises he later rejected.

He later wrote "I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley's Natural Theology: I could almost formerly have said it by heart."

That he hardly ever admired a book more does not mean he still agrees agrees with it. The earlier quote states why he agreed with it, but as he said he did not at that time attend to the premises. And in the quote I presented he flat out says that now that he has discovered the the law of natural selection he thinks Paley’s arguments fails. Nothing he says later about admiring Paley’s book contradicts that.

We can play this quoting game all day long.

You call it a game. I call it basic scholarship. If you are going to make a claim that goes against the prevailing opinion of experts you need to be able to back it up and address the counter-evidence.

As anyone knows, Darwin was in constant conflict with his findings, influences, and work along with being in conflict with himself.

He never reversed himself and never, despite his moments of doubt, says that the law of natural selection fail and Paley was right. There is no doubt that Paley influenced him but also no doubt that he eventually concluded that Paley was wrong. He is quite clear that the law of natural selection was at odds with Paley’s failed argument of design in nature.

His theory of evolution rooted in a design and designer.

You have not provided any evidence of that. All that you have shown, and this is quite well known, is that he was ambivalent about God and that he admired Paley. But once again, he flat out rejected Paley’s argument of design.

... and how creation/intelligent design and thus designer screams from his guarded words 'common progenitor'

That would be that we are all biologically descendants of God. That is not what he meant by a common progenitor.

I am with firm foundation for the commentary I have provided.

Not really.

Yet, a quote selectively is lazily thrown up as if it refutes what I said.

It is a statement that speaks specifically to your claim. The law of natural selection is at odds with the design argument.

Darwin's work is a subset of a much larger framework which great minds dared define.

Darwin is considered to be an important revolutionary thinker by just about anyone who knows the history of science and ideas.Two quotes to the effect that he admired Paley does not change that.

Fooloso4 wrote:...

Scholarship implies you are attempting to learn and entertain high level discussion as it has been presented. Scholarship is not taking a high level conversation and focusing on conflicting hearsay from a man who maintains that he is a believer one day and then shuns all such beliefs the next, then becomes a believer again, then flip-flops again and again... A man who says a framework so inspired him only to work on a subset of it due to being so inspired and then renouncing all association with it once he's found breadcrumbs of truth so as to distance himself from the root/framework of his theory.

Only a fool would not be able to see past this handwaving. Only a fool asserts that there is a design and order and that design and order came from nothing. Only a fool asserts there are progenitors and progenitors of that progenitor but then stops short of an ultimate progenitor. There are no gaps unless you believe in magic which no sound scientist should. A casual universe doesn't chain causes and then suddenly end in non-cause. Such fantastical belief have more to do with psychological aversions to unfavorable conclusion than scientific and/or logical premises.

The focus on my commentary was in the least abut Darwin's ever-so flip-flopping beliefs and life and moreso centered on the foundation that a design is with a designer. Darwin himself reflects that the complexity of life is with a designer : evolution .. the chain keeps going but he stops short so as to protect his psychological bias.

Yet, here you are playing games about Darwin's conflicting life presenting quotes as if Darwin ever maintained a consistent position about his beliefs.. This is not scholarship my friend and unfortunately you seem to have missed an opportunity to have a sound discussion on a nicely framed exposition.

Your loss. Science has moved beyond the design details of Darwin's 134 year old works. Interestingly theologians of liberal Christianity already supported the concept of Evolution before Darwin published his theory. So, the larger framework as to a designer and the entirety of that design remains. With every increasing year, we learn more about it. The quest of science and concepts like : Grand-Unified-Theory hinge on an ultimate design/framework.

Darwin highlighted a narrow piece of an ultimate design and aspects of this theory have proven to false some 134 years later as is the case in much of science.
Hanging on to nostalgic beliefs, quoting a man who conflicted his own quotes throughout much of his life, and acting as if this was the focus of my commentary is a game and disingenuous to the exposition. You are without foundation as Darwin's work maintains :
Progenitor -> Progenitor -> Progenitor ->Progenitor -> Progenitor
Design -> Evolution -> Design

Both recurse to a Progenitor and Ultimate Design. Science is in pursuit of it. Darwin's work speaks to his true beliefs moreso than his conflicting quotes.
Earlier quotes in fact reflect influence and roots. Later quotes reflect confirmation bias, hindsight, and an attempt by Darwin to distance his work from its true roots.

I came here expecting scholarship and exposition.. This is anything but.

P.S - Although it is misdirected w.r.t to the exposition, thanks for finally putting some effort into your post.

1i3i6--:

Scholarship implies you are attempting to learn and entertain high level discussion as it has been presented. Scholarship is not taking a high level conversation and focusing on conflicting hearsay from a man who maintains that he is a believer one day and then shuns all such beliefs the next, then becomes a believer again, then flip-flops again and again...

Scholarship requires that one evaluate the evidence impartially. Pointing to the fact that Darwin admired Paley’s writings and concluding that Darwin was arguing in favor of a divine designer is not a "high level discussion". Darwin’s autobiography is not hearsay, it is his own words. As I have pointed out, whether he was a believer or not is not at issue. What is at issue is that he makes no argument in favor of a divine designer, quite the opposite, he shows how species originate from other species by natural selection. If you make the claim that he does argue in favor of a designer then the burden is on you to indicate where he does. You have not done that. It runs contrary to what every competent reader of Darwin knows.

Only a fool asserts that there is a design and order and that design and order came from nothing.

Not nothing,but through natural selection.

Only a fool asserts there are progenitors and progenitors of that progenitor but then stops short of an ultimate progenitor.

Ultimate and first are two different things. This is fundamental to understanding Darwin. Evolution is bottom up not top down. He begins with what is given, not with speculation on the origins of life. He shows how complex organisms develop from less complex organisms. That represents a revolution in concept and thought.

Darwin himself reflects that the complexity of life is with a designer : evolution .. the chain keeps going but he stops short so as to protect his psychological bias.

Evolution is not a designer. Evolution has no plan for how things are to be. He stops where the evidence stops. He starts with living things and shows that there are no fixed kinds.

This is not scholarship my friend and unfortunately you seem to have missed an opportunity to have a sound discussion on a nicely framed exposition.

It is not that I have missed an opportunity to have a sound discussion, it is that you object to the direction the discussion has taken, which is, that you have not made a convincing argument. You have provided no evidence to back up your claim. There can be no “sound” discussion based on a claim that is simply false.

The quest of science and concepts like : Grand-Unified-Theory hinge on an ultimate design/framework.

I am not trying to be rude but you do not know what a GUT is. It is a theory that will unify the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions. You might think that it must hinge on an ultimate design/framework, but those actually doing the work make no such assumption.

Hanging on to nostalgic beliefs, quoting a man who conflicted his own quotes throughout much of his life, and acting as if this was the focus of my commentary is a game and disingenuous to the exposition.

What is the focus of your commentary? I took it to be the claim that Darwin supported intelligent design. That this is false has nothing to do with hanging on to nostalgic beliefs. There is no nostalgia for Darwin. There are things we now know such as DNA that he did not. We are able to give a more accurate picture of evolution than he was, but the law of natural selection stands. Once discovered he never repudiated it and never claimed that it entailed a designer. Just the opposite, it stood as solid evidence against a designer. Now that does not mean evidence against God but rather evidence against design by God or an intelligent designer.

You are without foundation as Darwin's work maintains :

Progenitor -> Progenitor -> Progenitor ->Progenitor -> Progenitor
Design -> Evolution -> Design

And again, where does he maintain this? It is your own conjecture, not what he said. From the beginning of our discussion I have asked for textual evidence but you have not provided it.

I came here expecting scholarship and exposition.

And you have repeatedly resisted any attempt to engage in scholarship and exposition. In my first post I asked a basic question: "Where do we find a designer in the pages of Darwin’s work"? Without textual support you do not have scholarship, you have only tenuous conjecture that ignores what Darwin actually said and what the revolutionary premise of his theory states.

Fooloso4 wrote:1i3i6--:

Scholarship implies you are attempting to learn and entertain high level discussion as it has been presented. Scholarship is not taking a high level conversation and focusing on conflicting hearsay from a man who maintains that he is a believer one day and then shuns all such beliefs the next, then becomes a believer again, then flip-flops again and again...

Scholarship requires that one evaluate the evidence impartially. Pointing to the fact that Darwin admired Paley’s writings and concluding that Darwin was arguing in favor of a divine designer is not a "high level discussion". Darwin’s autobiography is not hearsay, it is his own words. As I have pointed out, whether he was a believer or not is not at issue. What is at issue is that he makes no argument in favor of a divine designer, quite the opposite, he shows how species originate from other species by natural selection. If you make the claim that he does argue in favor of a designer then the burden is on you to indicate where he does. You have not done that. It runs contrary to what every competent reader of Darwin knows.

Only a fool asserts that there is a design and order and that design and order came from nothing.

Not nothing,but through natural selection.

Only a fool asserts there are progenitors and progenitors of that progenitor but then stops short of an ultimate progenitor.

Ultimate and first are two different things. This is fundamental to understanding Darwin. Evolution is bottom up not top down. He begins with what is given, not with speculation on the origins of life. He shows how complex organisms develop from less complex organisms. That represents a revolution in concept and thought.

Darwin himself reflects that the complexity of life is with a designer : evolution .. the chain keeps going but he stops short so as to protect his psychological bias.

Evolution is not a designer. Evolution has no plan for how things are to be. He stops where the evidence stops. He starts with living things and shows that there are no fixed kinds.

This is not scholarship my friend and unfortunately you seem to have missed an opportunity to have a sound discussion on a nicely framed exposition.

It is not that I have missed an opportunity to have a sound discussion, it is that you object to the direction the discussion has taken, which is, that you have not made a convincing argument. You have provided no evidence to back up your claim. There can be no “sound” discussion based on a claim that is simply false.

The quest of science and concepts like : Grand-Unified-Theory hinge on an ultimate design/framework.

I am not trying to be rude but you do not know what a GUT is. It is a theory that will unify the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions. You might think that it must hinge on an ultimate design/framework, but those actually doing the work make no such assumption.

Hanging on to nostalgic beliefs, quoting a man who conflicted his own quotes throughout much of his life, and acting as if this was the focus of my commentary is a game and disingenuous to the exposition.

What is the focus of your commentary? I took it to be the claim that Darwin supported intelligent design. That this is false has nothing to do with hanging on to nostalgic beliefs. There is no nostalgia for Darwin. There are things we now know such as DNA that he did not. We are able to give a more accurate picture of evolution than he was, but the law of natural selection stands. Once discovered he never repudiated it and never claimed that it entailed a designer. Just the opposite, it stood as solid evidence against a designer. Now that does not mean evidence against God but rather evidence against design by God or an intelligent designer.

You are without foundation as Darwin's work maintains :

Progenitor -> Progenitor -> Progenitor ->Progenitor -> Progenitor
Design -> Evolution -> Design

And again, where does he maintain this? It is your own conjecture, not what he said. From the beginning of our discussion I have asked for textual evidence but you have not provided it.

I came here expecting scholarship and exposition.

And you have repeatedly resisted any attempt to engage in scholarship and exposition. In my first post I asked a basic question: "Where do we find a designer in the pages of Darwin’s work"? Without textual support you do not have scholarship, you have only tenuous conjecture that ignores what Darwin actually said and what the revolutionary premise of his theory states.

I read through your post and posts.
Darwin was conflicted all throughout his life. As a result, I'm not going to sit here and argue about what his beliefs/commentary was at period A vs B,C,D,E,F except to understand that it was contradictory and fallible as is his work and any early work of science. What I will assert is that he went in search of a design. You don't do so unless you have faith that one exists. This faith was set upon by works such as that of Wiliam Paley and is reflect in Darwin's early comments in praise of it.

Psychology :
As he delved moreso into his pursuit and in hindsight, he bashed Paley's work. Why the flip flop? This is a casual universe. There's always a cause for a reversal. The more fundamental and deeper the reversal the more fundamental and deeper the cause/reason. Darwin flip flopped in his personal religious beliefs. As such, he set upon reasoning that disavowed his theistic beliefs in God. This occurred during and after his work was conceived. A person can say whatever they want.. Hindsight bias is a well studied phenomena.

If 'A' set you upon a course and you admit to it, its what set you upon a course. One may cross the finish line and wave their hand all they want and disavow earlier words. The early words remain. Later words in stark contradiction are a clear indication of : hindsight bias.

At the end of the day, I could care less what a person's personal beliefs are only that they're honest about it and state their influences prior to conceiving their works.
Those are the only words that matter. What you say after your works are created is hindsight.

"Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along effect or creeping determinism, is the inclination, after an event has occurred, to see the event as having been predictable, despite there having been little or no objective basis for predicting it."

What Darwin demonstrate throughout and post publication is classic Hindsight bias. What people attribute to him regarding his work most time is Hindsight bias. Furthermore, the concept of evolution was presented 100+ years before Darwin was even born :
James Ussher - Great Chain of Being
Carolus Linnaeus - Systema Naturae
John Ray
George Louis Leclerc ..

Christian theologist/Scientist were of the belief of evolution before Darwin was even born and had published works on it. Evolution isn't some magical concept that was only conceived by Darwin. He is indeed though the one who proof'd it and for that he receives credit.

You're presenting a very hardened and narrowed viewpoint on this subject. I am much more fluid which allows me to take on a whole range of beliefs and viewpoints and integrate them into a much more significant whole. I don't engage in these discussions to prove some foolish points about relics of science. I engage in a fresh exposition in hopes that someone understands what I am putting forth and possible contributes to it so that I can arrive at higher understanding.

This is not occurring. There is nothing to gain by rambling on and on about a 134 year old scientists whose findings are being superseded and corrected and whom other great thinkers provided much broader frameworks. There is something to gain in the ideas that scientists put forth. There is something to be gained if you can look beyond Darwin's narrow subset of a design and see something grander and discuss it.

Also, one doesn't have an argument against an ultimate design or intelligence therein when they maybe... just maybe have 0.01% of it understood.
You have a little bit of understanding which can easily betray you if you're a fool about its significance.
Interestingly, by such foolery you resign and limit yourself to your own mental prison.

I will never imprison my mind to such foolery.
There are things to pursue in life and understanding that are far larger and important than the confused beliefs of a 134 year old relic.