Firstly, traditionalists do reject natural selection, which is self-evident, or the modification of a species by natural selection. What traditionalists reject outright is the assertion that all biological diversity is a production of the modification of species in this way. On the contrary, for the traditionalist, every species is an emanation of a metaphysical archetype and it is really only the loss of a metaphysical understanding of reality that has led people to try and invent a theory which would account for biological life in the absence of supernatural causes.
This is especially significant with regard to the particular nature of man, who alone is gifted with an intelligence capable of a realization of his metaphysical essence whilst remaining in the manifest world and is thus the central point of this world, since he opens onto the Absolute, and is capable of sanctifying it, by becoming the manifest presence of the Absolute in the world. The theory of evolution, by positing a material origin of man completely obliterates man's inward nature and sanctity, thereby removing all metaphysical compulsion to act in accordance with his higher nature. It is of no coincidence that a materialist understanding of reality is directly linked to moral and intellectual decadence and ecocide.
Not to preempt our discussions on other threads at all, but related to this matter, do you realise how bad your comments sound? How anti-intellectual?
You offer no account of how the emprical evidence for evolution does not vindicate evolution. You offer no account of how wrong conclusions are being drawn from the evidence. You simply hold 'evolution is wrong because it would contradicts x y and z'....
If I have not offered an account of the evidence this is because our discussion has not yet entered this realm. I was simply stating, at your request, the traditionalist position, not its justifications. If these comments sound 'bad' or anti-intellectual this is because you are reading them with the existing bias that the theory of evolution is an unquestionable truth. This is usually the case with anyone who has received a modern education. What is interesting is the characteristically aggressive attitude of those who seek to defend this theory, an attitude that exists precisely because of the precariousness of the theory, and the fact that it is one of the fundamental pillars on which the modern understanding of the world is based. If one acknowledges that biological diversity cannot be explained by purely physical causes, then one is obliged to accept that the whole materialist paradigm is false. I will acknowledge that part of the aggression towards opponents of the theory is caused by the unfortunate intrusion of extremely unintelligent religious fundamentalists into the discussion.
The theory of evolution, by positing a material origin of man completely obliterates man's inward nature and sanctity, thereby removing all metaphysical compulsion to act in accordance with his higher nature. It is of no coincidence that a materialist understanding of reality is directly linked to moral and intellectual decadence and ecocide.
Well this means NEW philosophers and free spirits are going to have to create a noble account of man's nature FROM THE NEW FACTS. There is something extremely embarassing about clinging to arcane notions because you can't bear to face the consequences? Don't other people think (yes you, reading this)?
This is not my motivation, I am simply pointing out one of the significant consequences of the theory, this is only indirectly related to the reasons why it is rejected by traditionalists. Also I find the idea that something like nobility could even exist in a world which is not the outward expression of metaphysical principles, but rather a more or less arbitrary arrangement of subatomic particles perplexing to say the least. Does it not occur to you that the very fact that you can recognise something as elevated as nobility implies its transcendence, and the transcendental capacity of your own intelligence? I can imagine your response so perhaps this is a discussion best left for another time...
As far as the dialogue regarding evolutionism is concerned, suffice it to say there is no shortage of traditionalist literature on the subject of which I will provide some examples. It has also been discussed, although not in enough detail on this forum here
. One day soon I will write my own account of the errors of modern science and evolutionism in particular which will address some of the issues that have been raised on this forum, but I don't have time for this project at the moment.
Here is some traditionalist literature on the theory of evolution...
Julius Evola - Revolt Against the Modern World
(See page 178 – 183 of the original text (page 108 of the pdf). Not really a traditionalist authority but a worthy critique nonetheless. I also chose this text because I know that Evola has already drawn some attention around these parts, although from what I can gather he has been pretty badly misinterpreted.)
Harry Oldmeadow - The Critique of Modernism
(The critique of the theory of evolution starts of page 7)
Frithjof Schuon - Sophia Perennis and the theory of evolution and progress
(This well known text outlines the traditionalist position on the theory of evolution)
James Cutsinger - On Earth As it is in Heaven
If we discussed the theory of evolution for a year I doubt I would say anything that you could not find at some point in these texts. We could discuss this subject endlessly but we will not reach an agreement because our disagreement is more fundamental than a particular theory, it is based on our understanding of what reality is, which is more or less what we are discussing in another thread. For this reason I will return to that thread and, although I am willing to answer questions and continue this discussion if necessary, I don't really want to spend too much time restating the traditionalist position on a particular theory until we have dealt with the more fundamental problem.