There are people who doubt evolution today? And, it seems that it still exists... No matter how ignorant you are, if you see a monkey (ape means chimpanzee, gorilla) you can't help but be struck by the resemblance to man. How can it be explained in the simplest way than through a relationship? If we see people who look alike, although they live in different areas, we accept common parentage, migrations, but why not in the case of different species?
It seems, however, that reasonings follow people's feelings most often. Those with a strong religious education (especially in the States, where the state is separated from the church, how strange!) they don't like the idea of evolution, and that's why they build all kinds of reasonings to disprove it. Sure, intelligent design (the smart project, intelligent design) it is the last great attempt of this kind. But is it only creationists who do this?? Unfortunately, the phenomenon does not occur only in the camp of nostalgic creationists, but it is part of human nature.
Darwinismul sub forget
I mean, we can blame the evolutionists for the same thing? It seems so. Recent, about a month ago, I read a very interesting book, which can be found in bookstores: Thomas Lepeltier, "Darwin the heretic/ Eternal return of creationism", Rosetti Educational publishing house. The philosophical approach, as well as the history of science, of ideas, it always offers new angles of reflection for someone outside of this approach, right at the heart of evolutionism. It's a book I recommend.
Extraordinary, but there I found a lot of things I didn't know about, but which made me happy. In short, one of the first ideas that emerges from this book is the fact that biological science started from a metaphorical approach to the subjects and ended in the same way, with a somewhat metaphorical approach to the phenomena. To be more clear, works about the living world, plante, animated, etc. they were from Antiquity, until the 17th century. Lepeltier cites the work of John Ray (1678), "The Ornithology of Francis Willughby" as the first book in which simple morphological descriptions of birds are made, without moral speculations, symbolic etc. Since then, science has started to become more and more objective, equidistance, cold until the end of the 19th century, when trust in science began to decline.
Regarding Darwin's theory of evolution, there is a kernel of scientific truth in all the controversies, which we must recognize as impartial scientists. First, it is worth noting that I learned that some clear criticisms that must be brought to Darwinism were brought to it from the beginning. I was wondering why, despite their simplicity, I have not seen them mentioned anywhere. One of them belongs to William Whewell, among others, Cambridge philosophy professor. He criticized the idea of evolution before the appearance of "Origins..." He said that science must seek a certain knowledge, then he reproaches the evolutionists for starting directly with the evolution at the level of the organism, in fact to "speculations regarding a global historical explanation of the current organic state", without knowing how the organic transformation takes place. That's what I noticed too, but in another way, that in fact chemists are missing from evolution. In fact, a theory of organic changes or whatever had to be formulated and tested first, without her, it is difficult to understand what is happening at the macro level.
Then there were many criticisms of Darwinism, which fell into decline at the end of the 19th century. Neolamarckismul si orthogeneza (the existence of evolving trends, not necessarily related to adaptation) they were dominant in the era. And, both can come together and what I would call the "biochemical theory of evolution" can come out (a jellyfish theory, as someone called it some time ago, that is, one that encompasses everything, like a jellyfish, sends out tentacles). I looked for all kinds of Greek names for her, starting from other aspects, but in the end this will remain his name. It has something Greek, something semitic in this name (chemistry comes from Arabic). That is, everything related to our culture. It is a product of the culture in which I hope it will appear soon . It is a continuation and generalization of the ideas from "Civilization..." to be applied from the origin of life to man and with long-term predictions of biological transformation.
There are many fair criticisms of Darwin's theory, which were brought to him, but also some very simple and very serious ones, who see that they have not been brought to him yet. A propos, Huxley's confrontation with Wilberforce, the bishop of london, it seems to belong to the realm of legend, because the prelate would actually have brought more scientific criticism to Darwin's theory. It was needed, as Lepeltier says, of "a founding myth" of the new scientific generation, made up of members of other social classes. On the other hand, Dawkins, in "The Blind Watchmaker" he resumes a theological argument abandoned by 100 years and rejects him. Without theological knowledge, it is not recommended for an evolutionist to enter into science-religion debates.
But the most important thing that many do not know about Darwin's theory is that... according to the criteria established by Carl Popper, it is not SCIENCE, but only a metaphysical approach that allows the creation and testing of new hypotheses. The processes of intelligent design that have taken place in recent years have revealed not only the fact that this is not science, but the precariousness of the existing criteria to determine if a theory is science. In fact, the followers of the intelligent project do not often claim that his theory is science, but only that it is an alternative to another theory- darwinismul- which is also not science.
Cultural relativism taken to the extreme
Corduroy a high, intelligent design took advantage of cultural relativism to make its way. I don't care what he claims, how strange is what he claims, but why and how it appeared. Cultural relativism reaches high levels these days. Theories depend on time, by the environment in which they were issued. I agree with what some philosophers say that actually scientific ideas, but also their imposition, they come from prejudices, from philosophical ideas. Their imposition depends on the mentality of the respective era. I would go even further. I would say similar genes, not only similar culture, can lead to similar ideas. It's an idea to test.
At the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the 19th century, trust in science was much higher than now (there are more data in "Civilization"). Maybe science doesn't solve all problems, but if not she will solve them, then who? But first, why did it end up here?? The answer would be simple. Our brain works on the principle of reward. Everything comes from the reward, On an individual basis, but also social. From over 100 year old, we don't really issue new ideas, we perfect what already exists. Progress is mostly technological. We live scientifically, for the most part, from the ideas of people who have been dead for at least decades, if not a hundred. It is time for this to change.
I agree with the fact that science is based on creativity, on the generation of many ideas, which must then be tested. If the generation of ideas must be as free as possible, without prejudice, and as much as possible, their testing must be subject to very clear and very tough criteria. In this way, the possibility of accepting some scientific aberrations such as the intelligent project will no longer be reached.
