Constructive gadfly
Published on December 7, 2005 By stevendedalus In Philosophy

Awakened by Aristotle’s classification and metaphysics, Augustine conceded the possibility that essence of man or rational being pre-existed, or rather planted by God, in the evolvement of animals just as all material and efficient causation existed passively or potentially in the stars or basic stuff of reality. The domain of human experience is what makes for the concept of God or First Cause in the face of feeling inadequacy in contemplating the mysteries of our world. Just as DNA presupposes the emergence of person whether moron or genius, we dare not think we alone are responsible for the material and efficient cause of our unique existence, any more than we can conceive of the Big Bang as its own primal cause; for indisputably there existed a pre-condition to set the stage, which conceivably was the dying waste matter of a previous bang eventuating into ineluctable destruction, or perhaps simply the mischievous play of childish gods. From primitive to modern times the limitation of ourselves inevitably led to having to think outside ourselves to conclude that there is indeed a greater contemplative, underlying being that produces all that there is.

In today’s polemic sphere is engendered the theological and biological leap of intelligent design and natural selection, respectively. Intelligent design presupposes a supra natural imposition in the matrix of material and efficient causes and is no less officious than the ethereal concept of natural selection. There is a difference, however negligible in theory, which rests on the degree of skill and patience on the part of the leaper in the arduous race of unfolding life and meaning out of obstinate inorganic/organic matter. “Let there be instant light” as opposed to the frustrating search for light at the end of an infinite tunnel. In either case the light may not lead to the Final Cause — the ultimate revelation of a designing Deity or a jeweled crowned supra emperor of natural selection — but rather rudely take us to but another First Cause generating the Sisyphean process all over again.

 

 Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 7, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

   


Comments
on Dec 14, 2005
Apparently, it was fruitless to categorize this under religion.
on Dec 22, 2005
Try my latest attempt: E & ID
on Dec 26, 2005
hmmm... thinking.

You wrote: From primitive to modern times the limitation of ourselves inevitably led to having to think outside ourselves to conclude that there is indeed a greater contemplative, underlying being that produces all that there is.

Why would it be a "being that produces all that there is" ? What if the "All" is "mind?"
on Jan 03, 2006
Why would it be a "being that produces all that there is" ? What if the "All" is "mind?"
Yes, we could very well dwell in the mind or Being of an all-encompassing rationale, regardless of its sometimes brutal challenges.
on Jan 03, 2006

Natural Selection Is Design


I don't think you understand what knowledge about the world is for.

What makes Intelligent Design silly is not that it isn't true. It's that it is unusable. Like its cousin, creationism, IE makes no predictions and does not define any limits. It is therefor useless knowledge from an engineering point of view.

Science is not the quest for the truth. Religion is. Science is the quest for usable knowledge.

Understand the theory of evolution and you can create new medicines, the most obvious use. Understand creationism or IE and you can do nothing with the knowledge.

If, as you propose, evolution is design, what would be changed? What exactly are you telling us? What can we do with the knowledge?

Can we use knowledge of a designer to create new stuff?
on Jan 07, 2006
If, as you propose, evolution is design, what would be changed? What exactly are you telling us? What can we do with the knowledge?
It appears you have misunderstood my position. The underlying force of "natural selection" is indeed within the biological matrix from which knowledge and change materialize for the purpose of analysis and further discovery, making it useable knowledge.

Can we use knowledge of a designer to create new stuff?
I don't separate design from selection, it is one and the same, or perhaps a fusion of the two. There could very well be that evoluton has not reached a plateau and that further, imperceptible evolvement is in progress.
on Jan 07, 2006
don't separate design from selection, it is one and the same, or perhaps a fusion of the two. There could very well be that evoluton has not reached a plateau and that further, imperceptible evolvement is in progress.


So are you saying you are a theistic evolutionist?
on Jan 08, 2006
More accurately, a deist evolutionary or simply a philosophic one.