Biological evolution and Traditionalism

[Nimbostratus]

-The evolutionary theory, a substitute for the traditional theory of emanation

In reality, the evolutionary theory,..., is a substitute for the traditional theory of emanation and consists in denying the periphery-center relationship.(1) Thus the very existence of the Center, source of emanation, and of the radii leading to it is denied, and an attempt is made to situate every hierarchical relationship on the curve marking the periphery.

Instead of proceeding upward, starting from the corporeal level and passing through the animic sphere, then mounting toward realities at first supraformal and finally principial or metacosmic, an evolving hierarchy is imagined, advancing from matter, through vegetable and animal life, to human consciousness, itself considered as some kind of transitory accident.

With a thoughtlessness that is infinitely culpable when they call themselves believers some people imagine a superman who is destined to take man's place, and who consequently would also render Christ's humanity contemptible (2); and a certain "genius" imagines at the end of the evolutionist and progressivist chain something he is not ashamed to call "God" and which is no more than a pseudoabsolute decked out in a pseudotranscendence; for the Eternal will always be Alpha and has always been Omega. Creatures are crystallized in the corporeal zone emanating, in a manner at once, continuous and discontinuous, from the Center and from on high; they do not "evolve" by coming from matter and so from the periphery and from below. But at the same time, and beyond reach of our human point of view, creatures are all "contained" in God and do not really come out from Him; the whole play of relationships between God and the world is but a monologue of relativity. [Logic and Transcendence, p.68-69].

(1) This must not, of course, be confused with the emanationist heresy, which has nothing metaphysical about it and which reduces the Principle to the level of manifestation, or Substance to the level of accidents.

(2) For God only manifests himself directly in a support which by definition marks the presence of the Absolute in relativity and is for this reason "relatively absolute." This "relative absoluteness" is the justification of the possibility Homo Sapiens Man might disappear, if God so wished, but he could not change into another species; the Platonic ideas are precise possibilities and not just misty vagueness: every possibility is what it is and what it ought to be.

-About the evolutionist prejudice

Evolutionism, ..., provides a typical example of reasoning in the absence of sufficient premises. Modern scientism starts from the gratuitous and crude axiom that there is no reality outside sensorial, or virtually sensorial experience with the highly relative exception of psychology, a very limited domain which, in any case, can be reduced philosophically to a subtle mode of the sensorial; and since it starts from this axiom, it will reason in accordance therewith, leaving out of account premises that surpass it.

Now in the case of a reality that does surpass the sensorial and empirical order, any such reasoning must evidently be false - as well might one reason about a sparrow while denying the existence of birds - and it will demonstrate its falsity by replacing the missing premises by purely functional hypotheses; and these hypotheses will betray their chimerical nature by their monstrousness, as witness the concepts of the ape-man or of "hominization". All this is truly sinister if one considers that the essential truth has reference, on the one hand, to the transcendent Absolute and, on the other, to the suprasensible cosmos, or to the extrasensorial character of the greater part of the cosmos, including our souls which, precisely, appertain to this order. [Logic and Transcendence, p.93-94].

http://www.frithjof-schuon.com/evolution-engl.htm#l

Not only Schuon, but also Coomaraswamy, Guenon and Evola opposed  the evolutionary theory.

Some members have made a criticism against this theory, or darwinism, in regards Traditionalism, but this has not been properly explained or debated.

I believe in evolution but I'm also an admirer of these thinkers. Traditionalists often embrace Traditionalism as a Religion itself, rather than a philosophy of Religion, which as such, would be prone to criticism as every philosophy is.  I think that a flaw of this philosophic school is to battle a scientific theory with metaphysic principles, adding to it, as others have already mentioned, a teleology which is not proper of the evolutionary theory.

Of course, Traditionalism is a wonderful tool to understand the religious phenomena at a metaphysical, ontological and semiotic level, also, it is a wonderful tool to critic modernism, but in order to avoid certain flaws, it must be shaped to respond to a (really) post-modern world.

I'm interested in hearing what others have to say, specially from traditionalists.

[nous]

Which flaws do you have in mind?

this has not been properly explained or debated.

It has been elsewhere:

—Bakar, O. The Nature and Extent of Criticism of Evolutionary Theory
—Blackhirst, R. Evolutionism and Traditional Cosmology
—Cutsinger, J. S. On Earth as it is in Heaven
—Nasr, S. H. On the question of biological origins
—Oldmeadow, H. The Critique of Modernism: scientism, evolutionism, psychologism and humanism
—Schuon, F. Sophia Perennis and the theory of evolution and progress
—Stoddart, W. Six fundamental flaws in the evolutionist hypothesis

[Eleison]

It's practically impossible to understand the traditionalist criticisms of evolutionary theory without a deep understanding of traditionalist metaphysics, at which point the flaws of evolutionary theory are all but self-evident.  Most 'anusians' who are aware of the traditionalist school simply graft their existing philosophical views onto the traditionalist teachings, and in doing so fail to understand them at all, at least this has been my experience in the past.

"it must be shaped to respond to a (really) post-modern world."

The truths expressed by the traditionalist school are not relative to a particular moment in the cycle of civilization.  They are just as valid today as they were when they were written, and this is the case with all authors whose central concern has been Truth.

[JewishPhysics]

It's practically impossible to understand the traditionalist criticisms of evolutionary theory without a deep understanding of traditionalist metaphysics, at which point the flaws of evolutionary theory are all but self-evident.

Those self-evident flaws would be...?

[metal on metal]

Creatures are crystallized in the corporeal zone emanating, in a manner at once, continuous and discontinuous, from the Center and from on high; they do not "evolve" by coming from matter and so from the periphery and from below. But at the same time, and beyond reach of our human point of view, creatures are all "contained" in God and do not really come out from Him; the whole play of relationships between God and the world is but a monologue of relativity.

Not only Schuon, but also Coomaraswamy, Guenon and Evola opposed  the evolutionary theory.

Some members have made a criticism against this theory, or darwinism, in regards Traditionalism, but this has not been properly explained or debated.

I believe in evolution but I'm also an admirer of these thinkers. Traditionalists often embrace Traditionalism as a Religion itself, rather than a philosophy of Religion, which as such, would be prone to criticism as every philosophy is.  I think that a flaw of this philosophic school is to battle a scientific theory (...)

This topic is of extreme relevance, concerning the connections of this board / anus.com with Traditionalism.

First things first, Traditionalism is not a philosophic school, nor does it battle scientific theories- as Eleison pointed out, it is concerned with Truth and not speculations. I believe in evolution too, but don't know if it's true, and traditionalists at least helped me realize I don't. The deep understanding Eleison referred to is in fact inner experience of a higher level that cannot be transmitted through philosophy and is therefore in the domain of the Impossible for the one who hasn't attained it himself (if any Modern Believer / secret Pink Frothy AIDS fan is ready to deny all inner experience of the Impossible, then he's never had an orgasm or burst into Laughter). The main problem is the way our minds are programmed to understand time.

There certainly is a way of attaining this experience, but it cannot be rushed. I'm well aware of the synthetic nature of knowledge and the fact that this subject cannot be isolated -anyway- any help or further elaboration will be thankfully received.

[chv]

-The evolutionary theory, a substitute for the traditional theory of emanation

In reality, the evolutionary theory,..., is a substitute for the traditional theory of emanation and consists in denying the periphery-center relationship.(1) Thus the very existence of the Center, source of emanation, and of the radii leading to it is denied, and an attempt is made to situate every hierarchical relationship on the curve marking the periphery.

Instead of proceeding upward, starting from the corporeal level and passing through the animic sphere, then mounting toward realities at first supraformal and finally principial or metacosmic, an evolving hierarchy is imagined, advancing from matter, through vegetable and animal life, to human consciousness, itself considered as some kind of transitory accident.

With a thoughtlessness that is infinitely culpable when they call themselves believers some people imagine a superman who is destined to take man's place, and who consequently would also render Christ's humanity contemptible (2); and a certain "genius" imagines at the end of the evolutionist and progressivist chain something he is not ashamed to call "God" and which is no more than a pseudoabsolute decked out in a pseudotranscendence; for the Eternal will always be Alpha and has always been Omega. Creatures are crystallized in the corporeal zone emanating, in a manner at once, continuous and discontinuous, from the Center and from on high; they do not "evolve" by coming from matter and so from the periphery and from below. But at the same time, and beyond reach of our human point of view, creatures are all "contained" in God and do not really come out from Him; the whole play of relationships between God and the world is but a monologue of relativity. [Logic and Transcendence, p.68-69].

(1) This must not, of course, be confused with the emanationist heresy, which has nothing metaphysical about it and which reduces the Principle to the level of manifestation, or Substance to the level of accidents.

(2) For God only manifests himself directly in a support which by definition marks the presence of the Absolute in relativity and is for this reason "relatively absolute." This "relative absoluteness" is the justification of the possibility Homo Sapiens Man might disappear, if God so wished, but he could not change into another species; the Platonic ideas are precise possibilities and not just misty vagueness: every possibility is what it is and what it ought to be.

-About the evolutionist prejudice

Evolutionism, ..., provides a typical example of reasoning in the absence of sufficient premises. Modern scientism starts from the gratuitous and crude axiom that there is no reality outside sensorial, or virtually sensorial experience with the highly relative exception of psychology, a very limited domain which, in any case, can be reduced philosophically to a subtle mode of the sensorial; and since it starts from this axiom, it will reason in accordance therewith, leaving out of account premises that surpass it.

Now in the case of a reality that does surpass the sensorial and empirical order, any such reasoning must evidently be false - as well might one reason about a sparrow while denying the existence of birds - and it will demonstrate its falsity by replacing the missing premises by purely functional hypotheses; and these hypotheses will betray their chimerical nature by their monstrousness, as witness the concepts of the ape-man or of "hominization". All this is truly sinister if one considers that the essential truth has reference, on the one hand, to the transcendent Absolute and, on the other, to the suprasensible cosmos, or to the extrasensorial character of the greater part of the cosmos, including our souls which, precisely, appertain to this order. [Logic and Transcendence, p.93-94].

http://www.frithjof-schuon.com/evolution-engl.htm#l

Not only Schuon, but also Coomaraswamy, Guenon and Evola opposed  the evolutionary theory.

Some members have made a criticism against this theory, or darwinism, in regards Traditionalism, but this has not been properly explained or debated.

I believe in evolution but I'm also an admirer of these thinkers. Traditionalists often embrace Traditionalism as a Religion itself, rather than a philosophy of Religion, which as such, would be prone to criticism as every philosophy is.  I think that a flaw of this philosophic school is to battle a scientific theory with metaphysic principles, adding to it, as others have already mentioned, a teleology which is not proper of the evolutionary theory.

Of course, Traditionalism is a wonderful tool to understand the religious phenomena at a metaphysical, ontological and semiotic level, also, it is a wonderful tool to critic modernism, but in order to avoid certain flaws, it must be shaped to respond to a (really) post-modern world.

I'm interested in hearing what others have to say, specially from traditionalists.

Two things; Evolution is not at all what they are ascertaining it to be, ESPECIALLY Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection.
Secondly, most of that post is complete jargon.

[Veritas]

Can someone here who opposes evolutionary theory explain exactly what they interpret evolution to mean/imply, and briefly why it is incorrect?

[chv]

Can someone here who opposes evolutionary theory explain exactly what they interpret evolution to mean/imply, and briefly why it is incorrect?

Seconded.

[nous]

Since, according to chv, we don't even know what the evolutionary theory is, it would be better for you to explain what it is. Right? Thanks.

[Eleison]

Can someone here who opposes evolutionary theory explain exactly what they interpret evolution to mean/imply, and briefly why it is incorrect?

In a nutshell, that consciousness is an emergent property of matter and occurred as a consequence of physical events.  To understand why this is incorrect refer to OP.

[Veritas]

Can someone here who opposes evolutionary theory explain exactly what they interpret evolution to mean/imply, and briefly why it is incorrect?

In a nutshell, that consciousness is an emergent property of matter and occurred as a consequence of physical events.  To understand why this is incorrect refer to OP.

Where does evolutionary theory talk about consciousness, and since when is this relevant to it?

Biological evolution is, roughly, that genetic material undergoes some sort of variation when passed down generations, that this leads to genetic differences which results in different physical characteristics of the life-form, and that the characteristics which better allow the life-form to procreate end up becoming more prominent in the population, leading eventually to the species we now have, correct?

Re: http://www.worldwisdom.com/uploads/pdfs/134.pdf , for example.

(1) and (2) seem misapplied - would not, for example, crystals forming when two chemicals are mixed also appear to contradict these (or, say, formation of galaxies, geologic structures etc)? (3) is a fair enough criticism for the scientific validity of evolution, but doesn't really contradict it in any way. (4) - has this been proven, mathematically? (5) - why not? (6) - man, who is subject to physical laws, cannot step outside of these laws and make absolute statements about them. What's the difference? There seems to be a lot of question begging here (given that the document is more an outline of the arguments, this may not be the case).

[JewishPhysics]

I'm just going to have to step in and call a T.O.  This conversation will only result in people talking past each other.  The basis for the original post rests on the premise that the "Theory of Emanation" (I don't really know what that is) is true.  The crux of this discussion rests on a proper explanation of the argument and why it should be taken as true.  If those promoting the Theory of Emanation cannot justify it, then this entire conversation is only relevant to those who already accept its validity.  Given the initial post, I for one don't care to engage this conversation any further.

[Nimbostratus]

Theory of Emanation is simply the incarnation of the ideal Archetypes in the world of forms. On the other hand, evolutionary theory goes from the forms (matter) and becomes the "Archetype" (man).

It is a metaphysical theory that follows intelligent design. The flaws are a bad understanding or even a plain ignorance of evolutionary theory and the creation of an emanation Theory to fill the gaps.

To make this thread more useful and since the adherents of intelligent design have not made a concrete criticism, I'll start through one source given by nous in this thread.

SIX FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN
THE EVOLUTIONIST HYPOTHESIS
(1) Logical The greater cannot come from the lesser. (A biological example: The acorn gives rise to the oak-tree precisely because it already “is” an oak-tree. The acorn is not some nondescript “unicellular organ” or an ameba.)

(2) Physical (entropy; the second law of thermodynamics) Complexity tends towards degradation. Systems naturally move to a greater degree of randomness. Things run down, not up; they proceed from a state of order to a state of disorder. Order does not emerge from disorder (or organization from disorganization). Order is conferred on disorder by the input of “information” (“intelligence”), and cannot arise by chance. “Intelligence” is not the product of disorder! Nothing has ever been known to contravene this law, but the evolutionary hypothesis contradicts it.

(3) Biological (the stability of species) There is no conclusive evidence that one species ever changed into another. (If there were, evolutionists would trumpet it from the house-tops!) “Parents” have never been known to give rise to other than their own kind. (There is evidence only for intraspecific variation, not for the formation of new—and self-reproducing—species.) This is because of the fundamental “stability” of species. A species is a Platonic archetype. Evolutionists try to “blur” this as much as possible; some even deny the reality of species.

(4) Statistical (not enough time) Evolution requires that there should have been a spontaneous generation of life, but the simplest of living cells is so complex that the probabilities of its coming into existence by chance cannot be expressed in meaningful figures. No matter how much one extends—on a realistic basis—the time-scale envisaged, it is statistically impossible for the generation of life, and for evolution, to have taken place by chance in the time available. (The rather fantastical theory that life “may have come from outer space” merely sets the problem one stage further back; it does not solve it.)

(5) Teleological (the argument from design) “It is impossible that blind, deaf, and dumb evolution could have given rise to eye, ear, and voice.” “The miracle of consciousness did not arise from a heap of pebbles.”

(6) Philosophical (the relativist pitfall) The evolutionist hypothesis is fatally impaired by the well-known contradiction of relativism, often demonstrated by means of the statement “All men are liars.” (If they are, then this statement, also made by a man, is false.) Specifically, in the present case: man, who is said to be evolving (and is therefore relative), cannot all of a sudden step out of the evolutionary process, take up a stationary position, and dare to make absolute statements regarding the continuing process. It is this that is absurd.

For the theory of biological evolution to be sustainable, each one of the above objections must be refuted. This cannot be done. The evolutionists do not rise to this challenge. They look the other way, and bury their heads in the sand.

http://www.worldwisdom.com/uploads/pdfs/134.pdf

 

1) It depends on systems. The increasing complexity of the first life forms to humans, did not happen by a closed system process, but by a gradual fitting to other biological units and a reaction to the conditions of the environment. The cell is not isolated, and the cell doesn't become a man, but only through the interaction and fitting to other systems around it.

2) Evolution is about natural selection. Entropy is about the constant measure of energy within a system (heat) and it is not the same thing as disorder, specially because the Earth is not a closed system.

3) What about "transitional" species? The classic example being the Archeopteryx, or our hominid ancestors.

4) Again, confusing evolutionary theory and abiogenesis. This statistical argument is full of flaws:

-They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

-They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

-They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

-They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

-They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro

5)mneeeh...

6)Unless the self awareness of man is an evolutionary achievement that grants his adaptability to the environment by a more efficient organization of brain cells, product of natural selection.

[JewishPhysics]

I have a question to people who reject evolution.  If evolution isn't true, why is there a Telomere in the middle of human chromosome 2?

[indjaseemun]

Why not?