Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Biological evolution and Traditionalism

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 07, 2010, 09:12:47 AM
What if linear time is just a point of view of 3-dimensional creatures? :)

No doubt, but what it if is? So what? Then we try to interpret the universe as completely as possible through our window.

Well, there's also little place for doubt that some highly complex ancient religions created astounding systems (states) without the help (sic!) of modern technological cancer. These states served exclusively for maximizing the potential of experience which escapes the trappings of today's language. If ONLY the pontifex (king=god), prepared for his position and responsibility since childhood, was transformed (initiated) to be able to project in full effect the essence of the Vedas on the whole population, then it's still 1:0 for the ancient religions. This experience belongs to the Impossible, the irrational if you like, and you experienced it yourself through "the little death", orgasm, also in the moments of sovereign laughter. The ancient religions consist of effective methods for deepening this experience and projecting it onto matter, as is the duty of mankind. Unfortunately, already during the lifetime of Gautama Buddha, the historical forces of degeneration caused the fertile ground for establishment of aforementioned states to disappear and the path of realization was very limited.

Being unable to understand the failings of evolutionist theory is a symptom of the modern times, which I possess too. The linear conception of time is a gift from Judaism and was sealed with the historical placement of Jesus as God. To repeat: I believe in evolution, but do not know it's true.  While we are forced to believe, in the ancient times, for instance, even the proles knew that god of fire Agni is every flame, also he's in a herb medicine which cleans your body with fire. And these were only the proles and not the pontifex. You could say Agni is merely an archetype, I say modern language gives a sad approximation of real experience. To top it all, Wolfgang, I say you and me believe every bit as much as the Christians we oppose and are every bit as wrong.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 07, 2010, 01:09:33 PM
Archeopteryx

Concerning the Archaeopteryx I found two passages in Titus Burckhardt's essay The Theory of Evolution. More is to be found in Douglas Dewar's The Transformist Illusion, p. 50.

Quote
It has been justly said that the whole thesis of the evolution of species, inaugurated by Darwin, is founded on a confusion between species and simple variation. Its advocates put forward as the "bud" or the beginning of a new species what in reality is no more than a variant within the framework of a determinate specific type. This false assimilation is, however, not enough to fill the numberless gaps that occur in the paleontological succesion of species; not only are related species seperated by profound gaps, but there do not even exist any forms that would indicate any possible connection between different orders such as fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. One can doutbless find some fishes that use their fins to crawl onto a bank, but one will seek in vain in these fins for the slightest beginning of that articulation which would render possible the formation of an arm or a paw. Likewise, if there are certain resemblances between reptiles and birds, their respective skeletons are nonetheless of a fundamentally different structure. Thus, for example the very complex articulation in the jaws of a bird, and the related organization of its hearing apparatus, pertain to an entirely different plan from the one found in reptiles; it is difficult to conceive how one might have developed from the other. As for the famous fossil bird Archaeopteryx, it is fairly and squarely a bird, despite the claws at the end of its wings, its teeth, and its long tail.

Quote
Instead of "missing links", which the partisans of transformism seek in vain, nature offers us, as if in irony, a large variety of animal forms which, without transgressing the pre-established framework of a species, imitate the appearance and habits of a species or order foreign to them. Thus, for example, whales are mammals, but they assume the appearance and behavior of fishes; hummingbirds have the appearance, iridescent colors, flight, and mode of feeding of butterflies; the armadillo is covered with scales like a reptile, although it is a mammal; and so on. Most of these animals with imitative forms are higher species that have taken on the forms of relatively lower species, a fact which a priori excludes an interpretation of them as intermediary links in an evolution. As for their interpretation as forms of adaption to a given set of surroundings, this seems more than dubious, for what could be, for example, the intermediate forms between some land mammal or other and the dolpin? Among these "imitative" forms, which constitute so many extreme cases, we must also include the fossil bird Archaeopteryx mentioned above.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 07, 2010, 09:39:24 PM
There is, besides the lack of intermediary links, also the lack of archeological proof for the existence of contemporary life forms in the times past. I think both of the opposing views here are tainted with the contemporary point of view (even the Traditionalists cannot escape the same line of rationalization as their opponents) and therefore false.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 08, 2010, 11:09:15 AM
There are plenty of intermediate forms. The fossil record has recorded about 5% of all known species or less. The transitional forms debate is best left to Christian scientists in short sleeve shirts with ties and bibles in their hand. Enough of that nonsense. Well below the standard here. Now maybe I see what they were talking about when they said there exists a higher frequency of trolls here than times past.


Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 08, 2010, 07:35:01 PM
There are plenty of intermediate forms. The fossil record has recorded about 5% of all known species or less. The transitional forms debate is best left to Christian scientists in short sleeve shirts with ties and bibles in their hand. Enough of that nonsense. Well below the standard here. Now maybe I see what they were talking about when they said there exists a higher frequency of trolls here than times past.

Anti-evolutionists here are not trolls. From what I know they are good and smart people, but i really think that their intelligence assumed Traditionalism (a wonderful philosophic school) in a dogmatic approach, leaving aside the basics of Biology (I'm an amateur in evolutionary biology, but I try to know and not just believe it, as metal on metal said). Also, this issue is very important for ANUS, which is heavily darwinistic and traditionalist.


Quote
Likewise, if there are certain resemblances between reptiles and birds, their respective skeletons are nonetheless of a fundamentally different structure. Thus, for example the very complex articulation in the jaws of a bird, and the related organization of its hearing apparatus, pertain to an entirely different plan from the one found in reptiles; it is difficult to conceive how one might have developed from the other. As for the famous fossil bird Archaeopteryx, it is fairly and squarely a bird, despite the claws at the end of its wings, its teeth, and its long tail.

Well, the Archaeopteryx is not only a bird with just claws and teeth and tail, but also with other reptilian features: premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered, trunk region vertebra are free,  bones are pneumatic, pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section, cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it, neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds, center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets, long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle), deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles... and more.

It seems to me that a theologian doing biology is as bad as a biologist doing theology, haha.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 08, 2010, 08:37:08 PM
To understand the traditionalist criticism of evolutionary theory it is necessary to understand two things, the traditionalist conception of the archetype, and the reason for the existence of the evolutionary theory, which unlike other modern scientific theories, is not simply a spiritually useless half-truth, but is in fact an aggressively disseminated error.

Firstly concerning the nature of form...

   “It is necessary to point out that the notion of “form” necessarily includes a twofold meaning: on the one hand it means the delimitation of a thing, and this is its most usual meaning...On the other hand, “form” understood in the sense given to it by the Greek philosophers and, following them, the Scholastics, is the aggregate of qualities pertaining to a being or a thing, and thus the expression or the trace of its immutable essence...in its ontological basis, it is not an individual reality but an archetype, and as such beyond limitations and change.  Thus a species is an archetype, and if it is only manifested by the individuals that belong to it, it is nevertheless just as real, and even incomparably more real, than they.” Titus Burckhardt

It might also be helpful at this point to recognize that although time appears to manifest possibilities in succession they are all contained in reality as such in principle.  The fact that human subjectivity is located at a particular point in time does not lend priority to that point, any more than the fact that a man is located at a particular point in space excludes the “simultaneous” existence of other locations.  Archetypes are situated not in time but in eternity.


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

I wasn't particularly clear on this point, this is not so much a definition of evolution as an explanation of the existence of the theory.  What one has to understand, is that the reason that the theory of evolution came into being was because man no longer possessed knowledge of his origins, and therefore needed a way to explain them, because man was no longer aware of the non-physical dimensions of existence he invented a 'purely functional hypothesis' which proposes to explains the origins of the diversity of life (not life itself) in material operations.  This is described by Frithjof Schuon thus...

   “Evolutionism...provides a typical example of reasoning in the absence of sufficient evidence.  Modern science starts from the gratuitous and crude axiom that there is no reality outside sensorial...experience...and since it starts out from this axiom it will reason in accordance therewith, leaving out of account evidence that surpasses it.  Now in the case of a reality that does surpass the sensorial and empirical order, any such reasoning must evidently be false...and it will demonstrate its falsity by replacing the missing evidence with purely functional hypotheses.”


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?

The first part of this assertion is basically true, and this is the cause of a great deal of confusion.  Modern science is quite adept at collecting facts, and when these facts are left to themselves they are relatively harmless.  The problem is when facts are used to prop up theories which they do not prove, and which in fact could be interpreted in completely different ways if one were inclined.  This is a typical case of the fact that when one believes something to be true one tends to see proof of it everywhere.  Julius Evola describes this problem as follows...

   “Evolutionists believe they are “positively” sticking to the facts.  They ignore that the facts per se are silent, and that if interpreted in different ways they can lend support to the most incredible hypotheses.”

This problem is demonstrated adequately in the paragraph I have quoted.  First you describe the process of natural selection, which is an observable fact, then you say “leading up to the species we have now”, which is an enormous assumption.  Also this would be difficult to justify given that single-celled organisms do not seem to have any difficulty reproducing.  If the origin of all life is to be found in the simplest of creatures, it is difficult to imagine why such diversity exists.


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).

For a start this is not a particularly in depth criticism of the theory, the argument rest on many premises which are not disclosed and therefore are intended for people already on the verge of accepting them.  I will try and elaborate on these arguments to some extent.

For a start it must be understood that the first two arguments assume that the qualitative nature of form and intelligence is understood.  This is an integral part of traditional metaphysics although I'm not sure how widely understood it is on this forum.  There is no question that forms come into being within existence, but the traditionalist would say that once a form is 'incarnated' it tends towards degradation.  When a form is manifested it is closest to its principle from which it becomes increasingly distant until the moment of death.  For the traditionalist man is an archetypal form, meaning he came into being in an instantaneous way as a crystallisation of metaphysical principles.  This also explains the third argument.

Four is a fairly subjective argument but relates to five insofar as both of them assume that one understands that human consciousness is in its essence a reflection of absolute Consciousness.  What gives rise to these arguments is therefore the fact that the distance between the absolute and the relative, or the infinite and the finite is incommensurable.

The final argument is based on the idea, rather difficult to comprehend if one if not well versed in traditional metaphysics, that the fact that man is capable of viewing himself objectively in such a way already proves that he is not part of an indefinite development and therefore a completely relative being.  Obviously this argument will not be particularly convincing to many, but it is worth contemplating in my opinion.


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.


Firstly, the theory of emanation does not, as you say, "follow intelligent design".  The theory of emanation is common to practically all traditional civilisations, it is espoused by Plato as well as most oriental traditions.  What the intelligent design theory really is is the theory of emanation expressed in the language of religious dogmatism.  

Secondly, the problem with evolutionary theory, as I have already said, is not the facts upon which it is founded, but that these facts are interpreted in a way that excludes all knowledge which surpasses the contingent sphere of modern science.  When you say the theory of emanation is there to fill the gaps you have this the wrong way around.  Evolutionary theory is a way to explain the diversity of life in the absence of metaphysical understanding.  Also this is directly related to abiogenesis, even though proponents of evolutionary theory are quick to point out that these two ideas are being confused, there are still many people who basically adopt the viewpoint that life 'evolved' from matter.  

The fact that life exists on Earth proves that it can be recreated. Life is a natural step to Universal evolution. Soon humans will spawn suns.

This is a perfect example of what happens when to take a scientific theory, one which is already false, and raise it to a quasi-religious significance.  This type of idea is in my opinion already enough to prove the falsity of the evolutionary theory.


Anytime the conversation with someone moves into "transitional species" or "transitional fossils" territory it becomes material to question whether you'd be able reason with them enough to justify spending time talking to them at all. The creationist favorite lie. There is no lack of transitional specimens. All specimens are transitional specimens. Intellectual dishonesty motivated by superstition may not always be worth dealing with.

You said it quite well, if evolutionary theory is true then all species are transitional.  To my mind it is difficult to imagine why species seem to be as stable as they are if this is the case, and there certainly doesn't seem to be a great enough continuity of transformation over time.  All this aside though, this is more of a subjective impression than an argument, interesting point to contemplate though.


Anti-evolutionists here are not trolls. From what I know they are good and smart people, but i really think that their intelligence has assumed Traditionalism (a wonderful philosophic school) with a dogmatic approach, leaving aside the basics of Biology (I'm an amateur in evolutionary biology, but I try to know and not just believe it, as metal on metal said). Also, this issue is very important for ANUS, which is heavily darwinistic and traditionalist.


Traditional metaphysics is by its very nature non-dogmatic.  You're confusing dogmatism, which is by definition a substitution of a partial truth for absolute Truth for reason of expediency (exoteric religious forms), which strict adherence to Truth.  

***

Evolutionary theory is based on real facts but draws false conclusions from these facts.  These conclusions are evidently false from the outset because they contradict the metaphysical structure of reality.  The weight of the evidence that would be required to prove such a theory would have to outweigh the Absolute, which is impossible.  It can therefore be seen how pitiful the small shreds of evidence that many cling to really are.  Lastly, evolutionism reveals its truly dangerous character when it oversteps the boundaries of a mere scientific theory and becomes some philosophical and even pseudo-religious in some cases.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 08, 2010, 10:51:41 PM
You said it quite well, if evolutionary theory is true then all species are transitional.  To my mind it is difficult to imagine why species seem to be as stable as they are if this is the case, and there certainly doesn't seem to be a great enough continuity of transformation over time.  All this aside though, this is more of a subjective impression than an argument, interesting point to contemplate though.
The issue runs deeper than "every species is transitional": every "individual" lifeform is its actually its own species, genetically or experientially distinct from all other species. I am a species all of my own, distinct from my mother, my father, or Kim Jong-Il. If someone cloned me, even the clone would be a different species, for although we would be genetically identical, the dissimilarity of our experiences would result in differing physiology or brain patterns. If you want to carry this even further into the murky truth, there is no such thing as species, for no creature is separate from another or from the world. However, this line of thinking is not practical and it is useful to assign the designation of species to certain organisms or classes of organism for the same reason we call Emperor "black metal" and not "polka." There is no primeval "BLACK METAL"  or "POLKA" floating around in the primordial ether that we can point to and say, "gee, this is definitely black metal," but we can say "gee, this is definitely black metal" because black metal is a useful category for describing certain experiences.

I know I probably sound like a fucking hopeless post-modern asshole right now, but I've done a lot of thinking about this and it seems to be the only sane way to view the world.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 08, 2010, 11:18:22 PM
You said it quite well, if evolutionary theory is true then all species are transitional.  To my mind it is difficult to imagine why species seem to be as stable as they are if this is the case, and there certainly doesn't seem to be a great enough continuity of transformation over time.  All this aside though, this is more of a subjective impression than an argument, interesting point to contemplate though.
The issue runs deeper than "every species is transitional": every "individual" lifeform is its actually its own species, genetically or experientially distinct from all other species. I am a species all of my own, distinct from my mother, my father, or Kim Jong-Il. If someone cloned me, even the clone would be a different species, for although we would be genetically identical, the dissimilarity of our experiences would result in differing physiology or brain patterns. If you want to carry this even further into the murky truth, there is no such thing as species, for no creature is separate from another or from the world. However, this line of thinking is not practical and it is useful to assign the designation of species to certain organisms or classes of organism for the same reason we call Emperor "black metal" and not "polka." There is no primeval "BLACK METAL"  or "POLKA" floating around in the primordial ether that we can point to and say, "gee, this is definitely black metal," but we can say "gee, this is definitely black metal" because black metal is a useful category for describing certain experiences.

I know I probably sound like a fucking hopeless post-modern asshole right now, but I've done a lot of thinking about this and it seems to be the only sane way to view the world.

The problem is that those archetypal forms are the only properties we ever truly know, or arguably interact with, at least at the level of consciousness that mankind experiences. I would even argue that the idea of creating a nomenclature for every unique instance of molecular motion, possibly the only way to achieve an absolute morality, is not only an impossibility, but essentially counter-intuitive to existence as we know it. Experience, conflict, and the deriving of purpose therefrom is dependent upon our being able to intuitively interact with these forms that you claim don't exist, because of how they are imperfectly reflected, and how we compensate for that imperfection by the creation of the concept of the form.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 09, 2010, 05:27:20 AM
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution




Along with that, watch this series:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 09, 2010, 07:28:37 AM
bones are pneumatic

Most birds possess pneumatic bones.

Concerning the skull, consider this:
Quote from: Dewar
I deem the skull typically avian and I believe that this opinion is shared by the vast majority of evolutionists who have gone into the matter. "The skull," writes Sir A. Smith Woodward (Zittel's "Textbook of Palaeontology," Vol. 2, p. 436), "is shaped like that of a typical bird, its constituent elements being fused together and its quadrate free."

Quote from: Octuple
long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle)
Quote from: Dewar
"The vertebrae on the long tail are not fused." In fact they are not completely fused. A long-tail is not a character of reptiles. Some pterodactyls, in the words of Seeley, "had tails so short as to be inappreciable." These last two features, teeth and number of vertebrae in the tail, may vary in closely-allied forms. Some whales have teeth, others lack them. Some monkey are tailless, others have very long prehensile tails.

More of this can be found in Dewar's book. Transformist interpretations of the bird's anatomy seem to based more on wishful thinking than on observation.

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

The arguments in this text are based on modernism and straw men. For example, explaining the last so-called misconception, the author does not differentiate between absolute certainty and an explanation which is deduced from observation and based on a hypothesis which in turn is supposed to replace a traditional theory. However, this is what people mean when they, albeit inaccurately, call it "just a theory".

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 09, 2010, 08:32:28 AM
If you want to carry this even further into the murky truth, there is no such thing as species, for no creature is separate from another or from the world.

This is what Plato would call sophistry. There are several meanings of the word "seperate" in this context, and you are conflating them. Surely the All contains everything, and in and through this we are not seperate. However, there are qualities which exclude another, and in this way creatures with such qualities are seperate.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 09, 2010, 12:52:05 PM
To understand the traditionalist criticism of evolutionary theory it is necessary to understand two things, the traditionalist conception of the archetype, and the reason for the existence of the evolutionary theory, which unlike other modern scientific theories, is not simply a spiritually useless half-truth, but is in fact an aggressively disseminated error.

Firstly concerning the nature of form...

   “It is necessary to point out that the notion of “form” necessarily includes a twofold meaning: on the one hand it means the delimitation of a thing, and this is its most usual meaning...On the other hand, “form” understood in the sense given to it by the Greek philosophers and, following them, the Scholastics, is the aggregate of qualities pertaining to a being or a thing, and thus the expression or the trace of its immutable essence...in its ontological basis, it is not an individual reality but an archetype, and as such beyond limitations and change.  Thus a species is an archetype, and if it is only manifested by the individuals that belong to it, it is nevertheless just as real, and even incomparably more real, than they.” Titus Burckhardt

It might also be helpful at this point to recognize that although time appears to manifest possibilities in succession they are all contained in reality as such in principle.  The fact that human subjectivity is located at a particular point in time does not lend priority to that point, any more than the fact that a man is located at a particular point in space excludes the “simultaneous” existence of other locations.  Archetypes are situated not in time but in eternity.


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

I wasn't particularly clear on this point, this is not so much a definition of evolution as an explanation of the existence of the theory.  What one has to understand, is that the reason that the theory of evolution came into being was because man no longer possessed knowledge of his origins, and therefore needed a way to explain them, because man was no longer aware of the non-physical dimensions of existence he invented a 'purely functional hypothesis' which proposes to explains the origins of the diversity of life (not life itself) in material operations.  This is described by Frithjof Schuon thus...

   “Evolutionism...provides a typical example of reasoning in the absence of sufficient evidence.  Modern science starts from the gratuitous and crude axiom that there is no reality outside sensorial...experience...and since it starts out from this axiom it will reason in accordance therewith, leaving out of account evidence that surpasses it.  Now in the case of a reality that does surpass the sensorial and empirical order, any such reasoning must evidently be false...and it will demonstrate its falsity by replacing the missing evidence with purely functional hypotheses.”


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?

The first part of this assertion is basically true, and this is the cause of a great deal of confusion.  Modern science is quite adept at collecting facts, and when these facts are left to themselves they are relatively harmless.  The problem is when facts are used to prop up theories which they do not prove, and which in fact could be interpreted in completely different ways if one were inclined.  This is a typical case of the fact that when one believes something to be true one tends to see proof of it everywhere.  Julius Evola describes this problem as follows...

   “Evolutionists believe they are “positively” sticking to the facts.  They ignore that the facts per se are silent, and that if interpreted in different ways they can lend support to the most incredible hypotheses.”

This problem is demonstrated adequately in the paragraph I have quoted.  First you describe the process of natural selection, which is an observable fact, then you say “leading up to the species we have now”, which is an enormous assumption.  Also this would be difficult to justify given that single-celled organisms do not seem to have any difficulty reproducing.  If the origin of all life is to be found in the simplest of creatures, it is difficult to imagine why such diversity exists.


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).

For a start this is not a particularly in depth criticism of the theory, the argument rest on many premises which are not disclosed and therefore are intended for people already on the verge of accepting them.  I will try and elaborate on these arguments to some extent.

For a start it must be understood that the first two arguments assume that the qualitative nature of form and intelligence is understood.  This is an integral part of traditional metaphysics although I'm not sure how widely understood it is on this forum.  There is no question that forms come into being within existence, but the traditionalist would say that once a form is 'incarnated' it tends towards degradation.  When a form is manifested it is closest to its principle from which it becomes increasingly distant until the moment of death.  For the traditionalist man is an archetypal form, meaning he came into being in an instantaneous way as a crystallisation of metaphysical principles.  This also explains the third argument.

Four is a fairly subjective argument but relates to five insofar as both of them assume that one understands that human consciousness is in its essence a reflection of absolute Consciousness.  What gives rise to these arguments is therefore the fact that the distance between the absolute and the relative, or the infinite and the finite is incommensurable.

The final argument is based on the idea, rather difficult to comprehend if one if not well versed in traditional metaphysics, that the fact that man is capable of viewing himself objectively in such a way already proves that he is not part of an indefinite development and therefore a completely relative being.  Obviously this argument will not be particularly convincing to many, but it is worth contemplating in my opinion.


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.


Firstly, the theory of emanation does not, as you say, "follow intelligent design".  The theory of emanation is common to practically all traditional civilisations, it is espoused by Plato as well as most oriental traditions.  What the intelligent design theory really is is the theory of emanation expressed in the language of religious dogmatism.  

Secondly, the problem with evolutionary theory, as I have already said, is not the facts upon which it is founded, but that these facts are interpreted in a way that excludes all knowledge which surpasses the contingent sphere of modern science.  When you say the theory of emanation is there to fill the gaps you have this the wrong way around.  Evolutionary theory is a way to explain the diversity of life in the absence of metaphysical understanding.  Also this is directly related to abiogenesis, even though proponents of evolutionary theory are quick to point out that these two ideas are being confused, there are still many people who basically adopt the viewpoint that life 'evolved' from matter.  

The fact that life exists on Earth proves that it can be recreated. Life is a natural step to Universal evolution. Soon humans will spawn suns.

This is a perfect example of what happens when to take a scientific theory, one which is already false, and raise it to a quasi-religious significance.  This type of idea is in my opinion already enough to prove the falsity of the evolutionary theory.


Anytime the conversation with someone moves into "transitional species" or "transitional fossils" territory it becomes material to question whether you'd be able reason with them enough to justify spending time talking to them at all. The creationist favorite lie. There is no lack of transitional specimens. All specimens are transitional specimens. Intellectual dishonesty motivated by superstition may not always be worth dealing with.

You said it quite well, if evolutionary theory is true then all species are transitional.  To my mind it is difficult to imagine why species seem to be as stable as they are if this is the case, and there certainly doesn't seem to be a great enough continuity of transformation over time.  All this aside though, this is more of a subjective impression than an argument, interesting point to contemplate though.


Anti-evolutionists here are not trolls. From what I know they are good and smart people, but i really think that their intelligence has assumed Traditionalism (a wonderful philosophic school) with a dogmatic approach, leaving aside the basics of Biology (I'm an amateur in evolutionary biology, but I try to know and not just believe it, as metal on metal said). Also, this issue is very important for ANUS, which is heavily darwinistic and traditionalist.


Traditional metaphysics is by its very nature non-dogmatic.  You're confusing dogmatism, which is by definition a substitution of a partial truth for absolute Truth for reason of expediency (exoteric religious forms), which strict adherence to Truth.  

***

Evolutionary theory is based on real facts but draws false conclusions from these facts.  These conclusions are evidently false from the outset because they contradict the metaphysical structure of reality.  The weight of the evidence that would be required to prove such a theory would have to outweigh the Absolute, which is impossible.  It can therefore be seen how pitiful the small shreds of evidence that many cling to really are.  Lastly, evolutionism reveals its truly dangerous character when it oversteps the boundaries of a mere scientific theory and becomes some philosophical and even pseudo-religious in some cases.
Most of these complaints are addressed here(I think that what you refer to by "archetype" is interchangeable with the creationist "kind": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-DawQKPr8

How are you sure that this "Absolute" exists? Is it not a mere tautology?

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 09, 2010, 08:58:06 PM

Firstly, the theory of emanation does not, as you say, "follow intelligent design".  The theory of emanation is common to practically all traditional civilisations, it is espoused by Plato as well as most oriental traditions.  What the intelligent design theory really is is the theory of emanation expressed in the language of religious dogmatism.  

How would you call the rival theory of the theory of evolution? Intelligent design is not exclusive of fundamentalist Christians.

Secondly, the problem with evolutionary theory, as I have already said, is not the facts upon which it is founded, but that these facts are interpreted in a way that excludes all knowledge which surpasses the contingent sphere of modern science.  When you say the theory of emanation is there to fill the gaps you have this the wrong way around.  Evolutionary theory is a way to explain the diversity of life in the absence of metaphysical understanding.  Also this is directly related to abiogenesis, even though proponents of evolutionary theory are quick to point out that these two ideas are being confused, there are still many people who basically adopt the viewpoint that life 'evolved' from matter.  

I find this unnecessarily complicated. Is there any way that someone could prove that the Absolute wasn't for the material formation and evolution of life?
Life originated and evolved from matter, the rival theory intelligent design or "the theory of emanation" is there to battle against the gaps of "evolutionary records" and stuff like that. Is simple: there's diversity, and evolutionary theory is far better than intelligent design explaining it.


Quote

Traditional metaphysics is by its very nature non-dogmatic.  You're confusing dogmatism, which is by definition a substitution of a partial truth for absolute Truth for reason of expediency (exoteric religious forms), which strict adherence to Truth.  

It is not dogmatic as a long as it doesn't become a religion itself, as long as it is open to criticism. A lot of traditionalists embrace Schuon, Guenon and Coomaraswamy as part of their clubhouse, and embrace anti-evolutionism even when the arguments exposed by them against evolutionary theory are not very good.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 09, 2010, 09:43:45 PM

Most birds possess pneumatic bones.

You're right, pneumatic bones are an avian feature of the Archaeopteryx.

Quote from: Dewar
I deem the skull typically avian and I believe that this opinion is shared by the vast majority of evolutionists who have gone into the matter. "The skull," writes Sir A. Smith Woodward (Zittel's "Textbook of Palaeontology," Vol. 2, p. 436), "is shaped like that of a typical bird, its constituent elements being fused together and its quadrate free."


The brain is not the same, the cerebelum lies behind the mid-brain, in a stage between dinosaurs and birds . The nasal opening of the Archaeopteryx is far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra, unlike birds where the hole is much smaller.


Quote from: Dewar
"The vertebrae on the long tail are not fused." In fact they are not completely fused. A long-tail is not a character of reptiles. Some pterodactyls, in the words of Seeley, "had tails so short as to be inappreciable." These last two features, teeth and number of vertebrae in the tail, may vary in closely-allied forms. Some whales have teeth, others lack them. Some monkey are tailless, others have very long prehensile tails.


Yes, there're no fused vertebrae and no pygostyle, unlike birds that end up in pygostyle which is a fussed ossification. Birds have no teeth, not some of them, I can't see the relevance of the second part.

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

The arguments in this text are based on modernism and straw men. For example, explaining the last so-called misconception, the author does not differentiate between absolute certainty and an explanation which is deduced from observation and based on a hypothesis which in turn is supposed to replace a traditional theory. However, this is what people mean when they, albeit inaccurately, call it "just a theory".

The theory of evolution is not an universal induction (no theory is), but by far, is the best theory about diversity, specially because intelligent design fails to falsify their hypothesis. The strength of intelligent design cannot be found on itself through the observation of natural events, but is there the fill the relatively few gaps of evolutionary theory.

******

Talk origins is a great site to know the basics of evolution. I take a lot of stuff from there, as the Archaeopteryx stuff. I'd love similar site's suggestions or books (no Dawkins please, unless it is strictly biology)