A few succinct reasons why Darwinianism is false

[Herr Abubu]

1. Darwinianism has to assume abiogenesis, the utterly ridiculous idea that life just sprung out of lifeless matter. There are theistic Darwinians, but they're wrong in assuming that Darwinianism is compatible with their respective religions.

2. Darwinianism is a nihilistic philosophy, which means that Darwinianism can't allow meaning and purpose, and yet Darwinianism assumes purposeful behaviours. Moreover, our experience of the world isn't meaningless. One may say that's illusory, but in a meaningless world there wouldn't even be a concept of meaning. And if it's illusory, it begs the question of what it is that purposefully deceives us.

3. Every culture and civilization ever has a creation story. The Anglo-Saxon world is no different, and its creation story is Darwinianism. Note the similarities between Darwinianism and the capitalistic, libertarian culture (social-Darwinism) of the Anglo-Saxons. Darwinianism isn't only a creation story, but a story of Anglo-Saxon superiority, because the Anglo-Saxons were on the top of the world when the theory was put forth (and still are). It's a story of how winning is the end in itself, it's hubris.

4. It's a materialistic ideology that can't explain immaterial things such as the mind. Since the mind, ideas, abstractions, thoughts, etc., are immaterial things, one can't assume it to have come through the material processes the Darwinian ideology proposes.

5. Darwinian explanations of the human world tend to fall extremely short of fulfilling. The world described by Darwinians and so-called "evolutionary psychologists", the epitome of modern scientific quackery exactly because they are Darwinians, just doesn't fit the real human world.

6. If Darwinianism is true, why is it that we are so against the logical conclusions of Darwinianism? It doesn't make sense that things molded by Darwinianism would find Darwinianism appalling.

[Antimage]

bump

[Also]

From my understanding Darwinism is about how species change rather than a theory on the origin of life on Earth.

Although I can see why someone with both materialistic and nihilistic tendencies would want to make use of Darwinism the bottom line is, science deals with descriptions of the natural world, it doesn't treat the issue of wheter there is intention or not behind any natural phenomena. The social risk Darwinism brings is when people think that because some individuals pass on their genes through generations more sucessfuly than others, then this is the goal of their life and everything is permissible to reach that goal, but this is a naturalistic fallacy because any scientific theory just attempts to describe the natural world, not to tell you how you ought to act and what you ought to value, like a philosopher would say you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'. Saying you ought to conquer and spread your genes above other because of Darwimisn is like saying you should cheat on your wife with as many women as possible because you have sexual desires.

The issue with darwinian evolution is that it is not a good predictive theory, it tells you species change but you can't predictive well how they wil change and if they remained the same this could be explained by saying there were no strong evolutionary forces despite a previous different belief. When you compare this to a physical law, say the law of gravitation for example, they tell you exactly what will happen under the circumstances they describe and it can be tested more much easily while evolution involving going from something to another completely different is something you can't see in a lifetime.

The deeper issue could be how could we get life from non-life and mind from matter, but Darwinism doesn't really answer any of that and probably didn't intend to.

[RenaRyuguu]

It's not but each to their own

[Aldaris]

One huge appeal to consequences.

1. Basically just a bold assertion with no evidence it. All it takes for some form of abiogenesis to happen are self-replicating molecules, which can be demonstrated to exist. Also, there is no essential distinction between organic and inorganic matter, both are ultimately the lumps of the same atoms in a different configuration.

2. Theory of evolution only explains the diversity of life, it has nothing to say about 'meaning', which is vague concept anyway and it certainly doesn't assume purposeful behaviors in some ultimate sense - in this case it means nothing more than a set of physical traits and behaviors, which lead to having more viable offspring. Fancy philosophical terms have nothing to do with biology. The notion that there couldn't be a concept of 'meaning' in an ultimately meaningless world is completely wrong aswell. The development of the concept of 'meaning' was both an evolutionary advantage and a byproduct of our other cognitive functions.

4. Yeah sure, except for the fact that mind isn't immaterial. Just because it kind of feels like it is not means nothing. What we call 'thoughts' is ultimately nothing but states of a physical brain.

6. Because we are prone to fallacies (this particular one is a Negative form of appeal to consequences) and wishful thinking. Trying to ignore reality just because we don't like it is something that kids do.

Points 3 and 5 are not even worth replying. 'It just doesn't fit' is not exactly the most compelling argument.