I think you misunderstand what a scientific theory is. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." (taken from Wikipedo) The theory of evolution is the only real scientific theory that explains the orgin of species.
Well, evolution hardly fits the bill of "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". Observation and experiment directed towards finding evolution have provided absolutely no body of facts upon which a well-substantiated explanation of the origin of life or species could be formed.
Taxonomy is really just our best guess at how God organized living things. To assume that just because one supposed species cannot procreate with another supposed species means that it is an instantiation of a archetype is a bit of a stretch. Taxonomy is a HUMAN endeavor; to assume it aligns perfectly with how God structured the biosphere is to display tremendous hubris.
I'm not trying to say that the species we identify as being species are, in fact, synonymous with the archetypes; all I am saying is that the archetypes exist, and all animals are spatio-temporal instances of those archetypes. With a perfect taxonomy, each species would be linked to its archetype. Funnily enough the species problem (that is, what defines "species") is a pretty big hurdle for both evolutionists and critical creationists - a lot of talking past one another must go on, since it's so vague a category.
I am certain that any credible biologist would disagree that the fossil record, microbiology, genetic, etc. support creationism. How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.
I looked at the evidence and compared it to the theory. The theory fits the evidence very nicely, and provides a logical account of the origin of life and the variety of species which posits exactly as many "new" entities as evolutionary theory (one).
And about the Tradition part... I THOUGHT THIS WAS A NIHILIST FORUM! Do not a nihilist's beleifs arise from critical thinking and not blind dogmatism? You sound like a fundamentalist Christian... "SO IT IS WRITTEN BY THE GREAT PROPHET GUENON, AND SO I SHALL BELIEVE."
This is a Nihilist forum. I was, and perhaps still am, a Nihilist. In destroying all preconceptions - ALL preconceptions - I discovered that Truth was to be found in Tradition. It is not dogmatic, but experiential, and as such can be known by anyone to be real; luckily for me, I stumbled upon it. Life is immeasurably more wondrous, more appreciable, and more comfortable.
You're doing the exact same thing that link you provided accuses evolutionists of doing: Accommodating. You're accommodating the alleged facts into your position.
Yes, of course. That's all we can do - we can't make a time machine to go back and observe the entire history of the planet, so we can't collect evidence as to how life originated or how life might have "evolved" (or been created). We can try to collect evidence now to support the theory of evolution, by attempting to observe some instance of macro-evolution; at the point at which one is observed, the theory can be confirmed as being an accurate account of the origin of species, though certainly not of the origin of life, which will remain a mystery until one is sufficient in wisdom.
Irrelevant. How does the idea of Perfect Forms contradict evolution? Could there not be a Form for every incremental evolutionary instantiation of a species? How do you delineate the forms, anyway? It seems utterly arbitrary. If there's a perfect form for Chair, whose to say there's not a perfect form for... Armchair? Wicker Chairs? Blue Chairs? Chairs for Kids? What about Chairs that look like Dinosaurs? What about benches? Stools? Do not they all exist in the mind of God, and therefore have perfect Forms? Is there a perfect form for Tralfamadorian? Or Cargest? Could there be only one Form: the Form of the Universe? Whose to say I'm wrong?
Yes, I had this problem about five months ago. I can't quite remember how many solutions there were, but there are many. Bear in mind that things like theories of Forms, Archetypes, etc., are metaphors: they represent truths, but are not synonymous with them. When dealing with the infinite, words are not adequate: they can point towards Truth, but cannot encapsulate it.
How utterly arbitrary. We are made of Matter. We can take a Chair, disassemble it, and make it into... A fishing rod. Matter just changed Forms. Animals, likewise composed of matter, likewise do the same thing, although in a different fashion.
Our bodies are made of matter. We are most certainly not made of matter. We are consciously experiencing. Part of some experience includes perceiving a world from the perspectives of bipedal bodies.
If you make a fishing rod, then I'm sorry to have to tell you that the fishing rod is an instantiation of an archetype before the rod is made. The archetypes exist outside of time and space - they are like algorithms or equations which map certain qualities shared by similar objects.
I was going to write a lot about how the Archetypes might work, when it comes to the variety of things and the question of what constitutes what kind of object, but I realised it would be far too long for this post - if you want, I'll PM you some ideas about such things. Still, nothing that I could say should be taken literally; nothing anyone can say can be taken perfectly.
Why is evolution incompatible with the idea of Oneness?
It isn't, inherently. It's incompatible with the idea of Archetypes, it seems, but I'm not entirely sure as to how the notion of Archetypes is best defined, or even accurately supported. It's not something I pay much attention to.
Also agreed. However, that shouldn't prevent us from trying to figure it out, just because we can't know with 100% certainty.
I'll accept this, but I would subsequently caution that no man should take any theory as to such origins seriously, or as being terribly important, as we do nowadays; to do so is to place faith in fabrication, no matter how accurate a fabrication it might be.
So your think there is a capacity for genetic variance, but that this capacity has a limit, ruling out macroevolution.
Presumably, dog breeders never reached that limit? I don't think you can say that they are gentically the same and that it's jsut envornmental difference. Let's rule that out. There is genetic variation going on there. Why, then, assume that variation can't go a little further and that species-sufficient variation is not possible? Do you have any proof of this (i.e. that variation can't go as far as speciation?)
Dog breeders have reached that limit many a time, as have cat breeders. For example, I have actually met a dog so severely poodled that it was constantly ill - it was a genetically weak animal due to the rigorous breeding program which generated it. If a cat is purebred, it is more susceptible to disease, and has both a shorter temper and a shorter lifespan. I think the notion is something to this effect: when a certain trait is selected for in excess, either through natural or artificial processes, the gene pool of the resulting generations proceeds to shrink, until you effectively reach similar problems as can arise in cases of continuous inbreeding. I may have misinterpreted some of it, but I think that's the general idea - it certainly makes sense to me.
Edit: in response to the image, a creationist might say that those "species" are in fact singular, and that the lizards of that species which can no longer procreate with others have simply specialised too far in a direction incompatible with those others; regardless, they are the same species. I don't really know, but I'm trying to point out that much of what is touted as "supporting" evolution could "support" any theory that was mapped to it; evolution predicts only one thing which can be tested for, and that is the emergence of one species from another. Until this is observed, there is no evidence.