@Potemkin , you wrote my friend that;
With respect, I believe you are misinterpreting Darwinian evolutionary theory. I believe that people like Spencer also misinterpreted it, but that's no excuse to also do likewise. There is, in fact, nothing remotely 'progressive' about Darwinian evolution in the liberal bourgeois sense.
I agree in essence that Darwinian Evolution is still conservative, but I believe that Natural Selection is both a real phenomena and is a fundamentally 'homeostatic' mechanism which tries to inhibit too much change over time. I personally suspect and believe that creatures are far more capable of radical change in form and even function over a extremely rapid time frame than evolutionists and creationists alike would ever admit.
If I wrote in a manner which suggests otherwise as being my view, if I was not too clear as to that, my apologies.
Fact: life on Earth right now is, on average (in the sense of the 'mode'), no more complex than it was three billion years ago.
I agree with that as well, apart from the age thing
. Diversity and complexity are ideas that trip up many people I'm with you on that.
Most organisms now are still no more complex than single-celled bacteria or viruses. What life is, is more diverse than it was three billion years ago, and it just happens to be the case that one of the niches of that diversity is for complex organisms who are and will forever remain only a tiny minority of all living organisms.
The reason I partly give for that is Death, extinction of species.
To interpret this increase in diversity as an increase in complexity is to fundamentally misunderstand Darwinian evolution. A human is not more evolved than an earthworm, nor is the human species more 'successful' than the humble earthworm. We are both part of the same web of life, each with our assigned place.
Sure, but I would say that Man has something of the Divine Image in him. ''My'' fundamental premise in this regard is an explicitly Creationist one of course, where as you say every creature has it's niche, modified by an Augustinian reasoning his '''seminal/rational forms' or 'Logoi Spermatikoi''' that can fill a niche should a species become extinct, and then It grows into and changes into a being capable of re-filling that niche entirely.
On Augustine's ''seminal reasons'' I quote;
Augustine was very fond of associating the conception of simultaneous creation with the doctrine of seminal reasons (rationes seminales or rationes causales) which was found in slightly different forms in Stoic and Platonic philosophy. He was not the first to regard this as a theologically significant conception, but he systematized it more than his predecessors. According to Augustine, the members of the natural kinds which unfolded later on their own were created in seminal form at the beginning, but the seminal reasons also involved the seeds of all miraculous deviations from the common course of nature. In this way God remained the ultimate creator of every new being (De Gen. ad litt. 6.10.17-11.19, .14.25-15.26; De Trin. 3.8.13-9.16). (Knuuttila, “Time and Creation in Augustine,” in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, 104)
This unfolding of a creature's being to be what they are meant to be than might be observed at first glance is something very beautiful and profound, the more so as I am also explicitly a materialist and also believe in panpsychism and hylozoism.
We live in a weird and wonderful Cosmos I believe, and I'm not going to say major transformations can't happen, just not very often in more 'ordinary' ages. I'm not sure if it comes as a surprise to you that while I believe in a very young Universe I also accept a radical plasticity of material Form of creatures, perhaps more radical than evolutionary science believes at present, but that's the way I see it. However, I believe that none of this this was not the case before the Fall. Man fell, did not 'arise', and because of man everything fell with him, the Death principle being fused into the Being of all Matter.
There is no basis for eugenics, neither in Darwinism nor in any other properly scientific theory of which I am aware. In fact, the diversity of the human genome is more important than any other factor in ensuring that humanity has 'good genes'.
Agreed. But i'm sure you're aware how this thinking is creeping back openly on the Right these days.
Creating a genetic monoculture out of the human race would be the best way to ensure our extinction the very next time there is a global pandemic. Darwin knew this, of course, which is why he had no truck with eugenicist nonsense. He always preached the unity of the human race - that all of humanity had one progenitor, and that the diversity of the human stock is a natural thing and a great good.
Absolutely. The ''monoculture'' and thus extinction being the real aim of the ''Tower of Babel'' episode.
Agreed, but as I have outlined, eugenics is a pseudo-science which has no basis in Darwinian theory. In fact, it contradicts Darwinian theory with its hatred of diversity.
No problems there then. But as to the other, the fulfillment of the Dialectic at the Eschaton;
I would agree with that, but only in a dialectical rather than a teleological sense.
Ah, the 'cunning of history' or 'Divine Providence'... Well, we shall see then
But man is a fickle and disreputable creature and perhaps, like a chess-player, is interested in the process of attaining his goal rather than the goal itself.