Evolution or Creation From Darwin's Origin of Species

A philosophic look at Evolution as a scientific study as proposed by Darwin in Origin of Species.

This analysis of Darwin “s Orgin of Species was written in 1967 not much has changed. Except for one important fact.  Reading into Darwin's People Shattering Theory has led to monstrous corruptions by governments and what is even more frightenig, social engineering that is bordering on bottled babies to make us all equal.  Scientific study is done to advance mankind's intellect not to destroy the breath of God that stops mankind's physical evolution and encourages the Frankenstein makers of over paid zealots, in my opinion.

Evolution, strictly speaking, seems to be as much a topic of doubt and confusion as does creation. My background on the scientific explanations of both is not all that limited as I have been subjected to both theories. The amusing part of this subject is that no matter how many brilliant ideas are made and no matter what the credentials of the ones making them, full acceptance of one or the other seems impossible. Personally, I for one find little difficulty in accepting the belief that if one accepts Creation one has to buy Adam and Eve and the sneaky snake. Evolution, as determined by Darwin, denies finality or vitalism; he uses the mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection seems simple, but it doesn’t seem adequate. It seems true that unfit organisms or mutant traits that are harmful will be eliminated, but it does not displace the final cause. Unless I am misunderstanding vitalism, why can’t there be a force that starts natural selection and continues where it leaves off.

Darwin, of course, was not aware of genetics at the time and does not fully realize the cause of variability. Also, in modern times, the weakest have a chance of survival due to modern science. Natural selection seems now to be a question of sexual attraction rather than survival of the fittest. Darwin, in one of his later editions of the Origin Of Species placed emphasis on sexual attraction, that males were given or evolved greater capabilities in order to attract females and that both sexes did not have the same capabilities for the sexual cause. However, today, sexual attraction isn’t really so important; there are simply too many people around. Another of Darwin’s ideas are on “population thinking”, here it is said that he had his most serious trouble with the philosophers because he ignored Plato’s eidos or idea. Whereas to those who accept the idea as being real and variability as illusion, Darwin holds variability as real and ideas as illusion or abstraction. In one source it is stated forcefully that the concept of a variable population and natural selection does not refer to a mere Hodge podge of chance events but implies an order that eliminated harmful organisms or that organisms while not affected by environment during their evolution can change if a severe change occurs in their environment, also that through disuse organs could cease to function not because of their environment but because of its disuse.

Organisms are so beautifully adapted to their surroundings because natural selection eliminated and still does, the unfit characteristics. Darwin was a modern thinker as shown by one of his statements. Even slow breeding man has doubled in twenty five years, and at this rate, in a few thousand years, there would literally not be standing room for progeny.

Evolution in my viewpoint has in no way altered the argument for or against God. If it had it would be logical to assume that we would have had less confusion nowadays in our beliefs. However, evolution after all is not a new idea; it has survived along with religion; perhaps, it should be used as a supporting post by religions. After all evolution only tries to explain how life in the beginning began life and does not explain how it got here or for that matter, why anything had to be.

I see no reason of a God hovering over mankind. I can’t imagine the reason of a Heaven or a Hell. What reason is evolution the cause of the unknown cause? Why should we have natural selection? Why is this left to much of chance which lets survive unfit organisms.

Astronomy says that the Universe does not really have any specific order, planets and objects are caught in their positions by a force. The universe could be surrounded by something else, etc, etc. Biology uses eugenics, controlling the survival of inherited traits or breaking down DNA and creating new chains and producing new organisms. Genetics makes use of the chance factor as being all important. Genetics is blind to God considering Him to be an irrelevant subject as actually beyond their control or study.

And, to be frank, this is also my beginning of study. I do not deny God. I respect my religion, but I admit the whole subject has no answers and only question leading a circle? In order for science to achieve anything, to explain anything, it must have freedom from any distracting, preconcluding factors. It must accept only what it can prove and even that on a tentative basis. It cannot deny what it can’t prove or accept. However, if I had to choose a belief of evolution strengthening or weakening the idea of God, I would say it speaks more of a negligent God, who created, got bored and moved away.

When I wrote this my development of grammatically sound sentence structure was ubiquitous.  I have not evolved. 

1 comment

Add a comment

0 answers +0 votes
Post comment Cancel
Lauren Axelrod
This comment has 0 votes  by
Posted on Oct 16, 2010