Has anyone thoght about this? - Natural Law
is natural selection intelligent?
It is important to recognize that natural selection is very real. What has always been and still remains the error was to misidentify its role. Its role has always been the same - to PREVENT change. That is what makes it possibe to identify every living organism with a simple key or even a decent drawing or photograph. Just as Nature "abhors a vacuum," so " Nature abhors change."
Don't take my word for it.
Leo Berg, the greatest Russian biologist of his day, put it as follows:
"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Nomogenesis, page 406, (1922).
Even before Berg, Reginald C. Punnett, inventor of the Punnett square so familiar to those of us brought up on Mendelian genetics, reached the same conclusion. He ends his book "Mimicry in Butterflies" (1915) with -
"Nevertheless, the facts, so far as we at present know them, tell definitely against the views generally held as to the part played by natural selection in the process of evolution."
page 153.
Thus, natural selection, the sine qua non of the Darwinian fantasy collapses into oblivion. Even the most intensive artificial selection has failed the experimental test to transform a species even into a new member of the same Genus. For all practical purposes the present biota is immutable just as Linnaeus, Cuvier, Owen, Mivart and others all held both before and after the publication of Darwin's fantasy "On the Origin of Species," a book which contains nothing to do with its title - absolutely nothing!
All of organic evolution was emergent, planned in advance and took place on a predetermined schedule. Neither chance nor natural selection had anything to do with any of it.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
I made this argument in another forum:
Newton- and others - sought to find the formulae of the laws that described that intelligent direction, in their words, to know the mind of god, what we would call the programming code. IOW, Newton never thought for a second that his formula was a "natural process"; he, rather, believed it to be a description of the divine mind that directed natural processes.
Laws are not natural processes; they are descriptions of the governing principles that direct natural processes. How these laws are seen and taught has been co-opted from "descriptions of the mind of god", to "natural laws", which is kind of deception of terminology. From a Godelian perspective, "natural laws" can be said to be the limitations of the "box" of nature, or the boundaries of the set [rules that define the set]. As Godel argued, no set can be fully explained by what is in the set; the set requires a larger set, a contextual structure to support it's axiomatic rules. Natural laws are not laws of nature, but rather laws that govern nature, and allowed what we call nature to come into existence.
IOW, natural laws cannot have been generated by "the natural world" or by "nature", because there would have been no nature yet by definition without those governing and defining parameters and principles. Materialistic ideology has simply co-opted by terminology what at the time was understood to be something beyond or above "nature", because it defined how nature was governed [a higher set governing the lower set]. Natural laws by definition and by logical order must be "above" nature, because they had to precede what we call nature in order for the processes of nature to develop.
Natural laws are not part of nature (as it is defined and viewed today) other than in terminology. They were intentionally sought as, and described as, and by logic must be what you call "non-natural explanations", because they refer to super (above) natural, rational laws that govern the natural processes of the world.
To contine this line of thought:
It seems to me that a lot of ID research is negative in nature because ID researchers don't want to (subconsciously) make the same mistake that co-opted Newton's et. al. discoveries; materialists taking discovered supra-natural design principles and simply calling them "natural" laws, coercing them into the lexicon of the natural (which in Newton's time still meant a construct of god, but now means "materialism").
Let's say ID researchers embarked on a Newtonian quest to find an algorithmic informational code that described molecular behavior, and thus genetic behavior, that collected, sorted, tagged, and categorized mutations, in essence organizing them for potential future use. Or even a fundamental law of subatomic phenomena that explained their advent into life (in contradiction to other natural laws that would defy this outcome)
The cultural problem would be that the materialists would co-opt that new "natural law" as if it were a product of nature, and not a supra-natural principle that governed nature. It seems to me that ID researchers are at least subconsciously hesitant to take the Newtonian route because their work will be re-interpreted into materialist lexicon.
The real point here is that the supra-natural has already been identified scientifically by Newton and others; those laws directly implicate a supra-natural force or entity that must be ordering nature from outside or above it, because they cannot by definition be "of" the natural world.
Anyway, I might be totally off base here; let me know.
www.onlinefantasyart.com
www.fantasycoloringbooks.com
login or register to post comments | 0 points