Neo-Darwinism is premised on a philosophy called materialism which dictates that something akin to Neo-Darwinism (as an explanation for life on this planet) is true as a matter of logical necessity. Its pejorative to call it a prejudice, something I did not do, but which you did to try to caricature what I said in a way that misleads. The point simply is that the philosophy which dictates the putative truth of the theory is a metaphysical commitment, not an empirical construct and if the metaphysical premise is false, the theory is unlikely to be true no matter how badly we want to believe it to be true.
That is the very prejudice to which I refer.
Unless I misunderstand your writing, You seem to be claiming that I must believe in evolution because to not believe would be to admit to a sprituality.
And I am trying to explain to you that these are two separate domains. One does not demand the other.
I have no problem with the idea that some race of beings might be driving around the universe dropping off seeds and critters every hundred thousand years or so. But so far, the evidence does not support that.
The fact that I have determined religious doctrine to be mythology does not demand that I accept evolution as an origin for today's species. But it does leave my mind open to the possibilty.
That is not what I am saying. I'm simply pointing out that the premise that the Universe is a permanently closed system of material cause and effect is a metaphysical assumption, not an empirical one. If one thinks that the Universe is comprised solely of material causes and effects then any theory or origin of life that does not patronize that assumption will be rejected out of hand, regardless of evidentiary problems because the philosophy comes first and the only "science" permitted is that which confirms the philosophy.
There is also the additional problem of thinking, sentient beings. The very idea of scientific truth implies that the mind is free from material causes because it only makes sense to speak of scientific truth if the mind is free to distinguish truth from error. But materialism is self-refuting because if all there is are material causes and effects, then truth is impossible, including the truth of materialism. Here is how George Gilder puts it: "Materialism generally and Darwinian reductionism, specifically, comprise thoughts that deny thought, and contradict themselves. As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” Nobel-laureate biologist Max Delbrück (who was trained as a physicist) described the contradiction in an amusing epigram when he said that the neuroscientist’s effort to explain the brain as mere meat or matter “reminds me of nothing so much as Baron Munchausen’s attempt to extract himself from a swamp by pulling on his own hair.” Analogous to such canonical self-denying sayings as The Cretan says all Cretans are liars, the paradox of the self-denying mind tends to stultify every field of knowledge and art that it touches and threatens to diminish this golden age of technology into a dark age of scientiftic reductionism and, following in its trail, artistic and philosophical nihilism."
I have linked Gilder's entire article. He's a wonderful thinker and writer.
