To support his own story each adds a little legend.
Marcel Jouhandeau
Hard times for Darwinian
One day, a student called me in the middle class: "Sir, you say that to be believer, why do you teach the theory of Darwinian evolution? "Although a bit rough, the question deserves an answer:" There is no conflict between Darwinism and Christianity, Catholicism in particular; only the religious fundamentalists - the "creationist" - reject Darwinism; gold, I am not fundamentalist, so not a creationist. By "creationism" is meant the religious doctrine that admits that the creation story found in Genesis is literally true (eg, the world and all species were created by God in six days ago about ten thousand years.) "My answer is too dense sparked more questions for the student who, therefore, asked me emphatically:" Could you explain to me more, I do not understand! "What I did and urge , by way of summary, here is what was my answer.
"Among Catholics, long ago that the story of Genesis - the first book of the Bible - like any other biblical text moreover, is more read and understood literally. Unlike Protestants, who swears by the motto of Luther Sola Scriptura , Catholicism has never favored a literal reading of biblical texts. Thus, at least for a Catholic, "image" which is still beyond the letter of the biblical account of creation means that " The Creator is not only one who acts in an instant original, but the Being whose will all be creative brings into existence every moment, be leading history of the universe and men, not necessarily explicit and repeated interventions, but even and especially by the existence that gives and it supports his creative will, in the manner it determines . "( Montenat C., L. Plateaux, P. Roux, To read the creation in the evolution , Cerf, 1988, p. 13.) This smart playlist, that is to say "symbolic", the creation story had received the approval of Pope John Paul II, in 1981, said:
Holy Scripture wants simply declare that the world was created by God and to teach this truth it expresses itself with terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer [...] Any other teaching about the origin and constitution of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible: it does not teach how the world was made but how one goes to heaven. ( Quoted in Jacques Duquesne God, despite all , Stock / Plone, the paperback, 2005, note 4 p. 178-179.)
With this statement, the previous pope acknowledged that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, and thus its role is not to say the truth, but sense of truth. So much so that in 1996 the same pope declared before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:
New knowledge leads to recognition in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work carried out independently each other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory [of evolution]. (Ibid., p.130)
I am not a creationist, I continued, though I am a believer. I retain serious doubts about the truth of Darwinism. In sum, I'd be on this point, as is often said in jest, "more Catholic than the Pope! These doubts about the truth of Darwinism - the truth that the Pope seems to admit his part - as it were crystallized from a reading of a remarkable essay from the pen of an Australian philosopher, named David Stove (1927-1994). The book entitled Darwinian Fairytales (Darwinian Fairytales). Published a year after the death of the author, the book has still not been translated into French. I vainly hoped he was in 2009, the year marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species (1859), became an absolute classic of modern science - "to understand life," added a journalist. I have trouble understanding this gap. I hope we will have the courage to publish it soon in French, as also that other critical devastating Darwinism, Darwin Got Wrong What Jerry Fodor (assisted by M. Piattelli-Palmarini, 2010), American philosopher of renown.
Again, I want to say that one can be anti-Darwinian and be a believer or unbeliever, and non-creationist. David Stove and Jerry Fodor are not believers; a fortiori, they are not creationists. I am a believer but not a creationist. In sum, it would be a fallacy of false dilemma to say: " if you're not in favor of Darwin, you're always a believer and, worse, a creationist! . Things are sometimes more complex than we think ...
Let us therefore Stove's book and his criticism of Darwinism, you understand one reason why the pope who, like me, does not allow creationism , no reason to accept either Darwinism.
Stove's book contains eleven essays. I can not make the full report. Each chapter is, as I said before, a self-test itself, so it is not necessary to have read the first ten trials to understand the latter. The first, however, without a doubt the most powerful, is unavoidable. It is called "Darwinism's Dilemma , which could be translated literally as" The dilemma of Darwinism, "but the literal translation is wrong because it is not strictly speaking a" dilemma ", but a contradiction confronting Darwinism. A better translation might be "the contradiction of Darwinism", or to make wiser - more Kant - "the antithesis of Darwinism."
What is the famous contradiction that is seen confronting Darwinism? The very first paragraph sets the :
If Darwin's theory of Evolution Were True, there's Would Be In Every species has a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in only a few "Wich In Any Generation Can Be Winners. Purpose It Is Perfectly Obvious That human life is not Like That, however it May Be with Other Species.
Here, schematically, what is the "contradiction of Darwinism." Two assumptions are necessary.
(1) The theory of Darwinian evolution (Darwinism, for short) states that within each species, whose species human, there is a fight between members perpetual and ruthless to survive, which often are those who in every generation, survivors.
(2) However, we note that (1) is not the case for the human species.
Conclusion: Darwinism is certainly false.
To remove the contradiction of Darwinism, Stove present three solutions that Darwinians have tried to make. He named three picturesque names, worthy of fairy tales, three solutions were proposed since the publication of The origin species up today to solve the contradiction of Darwinism: that of the caveman (the Cave Man way out) of Radical Man (the Hard Man) and finally, that of Man Mou (Soft Man). Each of these types of human responses that were characterized offered to resolve the contradiction. Stove shows that each of these solutions, instead of addressing the contradiction, however, the firmer. Consider in turn each of these solutions.
1 .- The Caveman
This solution consiste à admettre que le darwinisme avait cours à une époque reculée, à l’époque de l’Homme des Cavernes. Stove écrit:
In the olden days (this story goes), human populations always did press relentlessly on their supply of food, and thereby brought about constant competition for survival among the too-numerous competitors, and hence natural selection of those organisms which were best fitted to succeed in the struggle for life… But our species (the story goes) escaped long ago from brutal régime of natural selection. We developped a thousand forms of attachment, loyalty, cooperation, and unforced subordination, every one of them quite incompatible With A constant and merciless competition to survive. WE HAVE HAD now for a very long time, at least Locally, religions, moralities, laws or customs, respect for life and property ... (p. 4)
In short, the solution suggested by that of the Caveman is actually a myth that "liberal" famous "social contract" involving, before life in society, a "state of nature" where human life was "solitary, miserable, dangerous, animal and short" as already described Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan I, 13).
Unfortunately, the solution of the caveman is not a solution at all since on the contrary it makes more visible the contradiction of Darwinism. Indeed, Darwinism " Is A universal generalization about all terrestrial species " at any time, so that by saying that Darwinism is not true for today as regards the human species (or any other species), or from the so-called output of the Caveman's state of nature, then we must admit that the theory of evolution is not true, full stop. As rightly written Stove " If Darwin's theory of evolution IS true, no species Can Never Escape from the process of natural selection . "(P. 4)
Furthermore, it must be admitted that the existence of mankind in the famous "state of nature" in its Darwinian or Hobbesian, is highly exaggerated and unlikely. A forest of pines or cod population can not live without cooperation, but human beings can not survive without cooperation. The liberal myth of the Man Cave is our cherished myth. "By now It Is Enshrined in a thousand cartoons and comic strips [think of The famous TV series Pierreàfeu ], and It Is as immovable as Christmas. "(p. 5)
2 - Radical Man
Now for the second solution envisioned by Darwinians, that of Man Radical. While the Caveman dithers, Radical Man, as its name suggests, takes the bull by the horns. Stove wrote:
He says thats the Darwinian theory of evolution IS true Without exception, and It Is just to bad for "any appearance, That There Are May Be Gold in human life, That Which contradicts theory. Theys Must Be delusive appearance, that's all. Underneath the veneer of civilization, the Hard Man says, & Events "under the placid surface of everyday Domesticity, human life really us just have a constant and fierce struggle for survival" As Is "The Life of Every Other species. (p. 10)
will be recognized is the "social Darwinism" that Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) are the figureheads. The first was nicknamed "Darwin's bulldog." Huxley did not lace: the struggle for survival is not a fad theory because it takes place here and now before our eyes, that is to say in Victorian England of the 1890s, where nearly 5% of the poorest English struggling for their survival food. Stove ironically just noting qu'Huxley this struggle extends to the human species as a whole. Seeking examples of Darwinism, Huxley points to other struggles between colonial empires engaged in by British, French and German. Let ...
In fact, this is not so much the real struggles that men carry every day that fuel faith in Darwinism that Huxley attempts to obscure and diminish these struggles are the health care, education and employment insurance provided by the welfare state. That is what is perfectly deplorable and reprehensible, according to Huxley, because it is "The Inevitable to Prevent Being led astray! "(p. 11). In short, the state interferes with the process of natural selection, which is perfectly immoral, always according Huxley. This Herbert Spencer comes in with his book, The Man Versus the State (1884), which became the bible of the great American capitalists, John D. Rockeffeler (1839-1937) and Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) in mind. It was also at the same time that the first eugenic theories in the writings of Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton. Darwin did not milled out of this triumphant radicalism, particularly regarding eugenics, Stove citing incriminating parts of the Descent of Man. (p. 16-17)
What is particularly distressing in the solution advocated by the Radical Man is that it claims to be fighting against everything that opposes the inevitable! What futility! It is en effet parfaitement vain de s’opposer à ce qui, de toute façon, doit se produire. Stove écrit :
…I will say that the inevitable cannot – logically cannot – be led astray. If (for example) hospitals and unemployment relief really do interfere with or negate the processes of competition and natural selection, then those processes are not inevitable. If they are inevitable, then they really are inevitable, and there is not the smallest need for anyone to exert himself to prevent their being interfered with or negated. In particular there is no need for, and indeed no sense in, Hard Men writing books in order to warn us of biological With Those dangers of interfering processes. You cannot interferes With inevitable processes. (p. 12)
Stove reveals an absurdity at the heart of the young man Radical Popper himself had stated at the very heart of Marxist theory. Both consist in fact "in a prophecy history, combined with an implicit appeal to the moral law as follows: Press the inevitable " (Karl Popper , Unfinished Quest, Pocket, 1994, p. 44.)
If Huxley was Darwin's bulldog, Richard Dawkins is currently unquestionably the Rottweiler. Stove devotes many pages to the Darwinian pitbull. He sees as the perfect example of radical human. His task is not so much to justify the contradiction of Darwinism as we bring willingly or by force in the throat. The fanatics are not always those who you think.
3 - The Man Mou
The response of Man Mou to the contradiction of Darwinism do not constitute real one: it is an admission implied that there no contradiction because he ignores or pretends to ignore it. This ignorance is that the vast majority of us accept without too much difficulty most of the Darwinian doctrine, and condemn, however, not without a certain severity, the extravagances of Man Radical Social Darwinism and its eugenics in particular. Stove says that man is first Mou Darwin himself, this character shy, reserved, sensitive, secret last analysis, avoiding controversy like the plague, preferring the calm and careful study of its critters and flora, far from the furies that has yet raised.
The reassuring picture that emerges from Darwin himself, a little dark ages, a little bit worried, as disillusioned, is that of Man Mou we are, accepting, as a letter to post, however flagrant contradiction that contains the mythical religion of Modern Man, ours, that of Man Mou. "
I hope the summary report of the first test Darwinian Fairytales not spoil your Christmas Eve. My hope is that this fairy tale entices you and you put in appetite to devour the other fairy tales of fabulous storyteller that Darwinians was David Stove.
In any case, I can assure you that the student appeared entirely satisfied with my answer. Moreover, as a Catholic believer, I sincerely hope that Benedict XVI reviews the positions of the Church on the subject.
0 comments:
Post a Comment