Friday, 19 February 2016

Second draft of the paper A new metaphysics for biology


  1. Well! Cat - pigeons!

    Very well argued, - let the feather ruffling commence.

  2. Dr Charlton

    I like this piece by Ellen Myers: The Ultimate Evolutionist Model: Evolution by Purposive "Forces"


  3. "I advocate a new metaphysical basis for biology which subordinates natural selection to an evolving hierarchy of conscious and purposive entities that are located prior to and outwith solid matter"

    In other words, souls before bodies, minds before brains and consciousness before time and space.

  4. Dr Charlton

    I’ve been thinking a lot about your paper. You may think that I am being presumptuous in making suggestions about how I’d like to see it develop. If you do feel that, I am sorry for offending you. Please accept that I do not mean to offend, I am truly interested, and believe that the paper can and ought to go further.
    It has been my view for years that the creation story in Genesis is an early, but basically accurate explanation, and that it is consistent with current scientific evolutionary theory. That is except for the absence of God in the evolutionary theory.

    Your paper includes the idea of conciousness directing evolution, through increasing numbers of emanations from the original consciousness. You also say that deism usually breaks down into either religion of atheism, and that you favour religion. You also say that the average biologist will not accept your theory.

    If the average biologist will not accept your theory as it stands, what is there to lose by fleshing out your theory to include religion? I would really like to see you do the next section where you give consciousness its proper name, and then go on to link your theory with the creation story in Genesis – the orthogenetic driven and directed universe - cosmogenesis - biogenesis parts - and the genesis of thought – all stages to be seen in the Genesis story. But I think people need to know how to see it, and how it is absolutely not telling a different story from current science. (I find Theilard de Chardin fascinating on this).

    Your Mormon influenced thinking believes that humans are to become god-like, or even gods in their own right. It might well be that this is to be achieved through consciousness becoming so specialised that it can discern the mechanism – directed evolution - and become part of that team of directors – a flesh and blood/spiritual emanation from original consciousness, or God.

    I also found the following of real interest. It an excerpt from a paper written by Werner Arber, President of the Council of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

    “The chapter of the Genesis in the Old Testament is for me a testimony of an early scientific worldview already existing several thousand years ago. This chapter also reflects a wide consistency between religious faith and available scientific knowledge. It proposes a logical sequence of events in which the creation of our planet Earth may have been followed by the establishment of the conditions for life. Plants were then introduced and subsequently provided food for animals before human beings were finally introduced. Leaving aside the question of Revelation, this is clearly a logical narration of the possible evolutionary origin of things by imaginary events that led to the nature that the ancient populations could observe. From the genealogy outlined in the Old Testament I can also conclude that its authors were aware of phenotypical (i.e. genetic) variants. The people described have their own personal characteristics and are not genetically identical clones of Adam and Eve. In these stories we find a good consistency between early religious faith and scientific knowledge about evolutionary developments. It is our duty today to preserve (and where necessary restore) this consistency on the basis of the improved scientific knowledge now available. I am convinced that scientific knowledge and faith are complementary elements in our orientational knowledge and should remain so.”

    Here is the link to the whole paper:

    Blessings on you and yours

    Warm regards


  5. I like the argument in the article that is reached by following the link below.

    Basically - biology is teleological and suggests an intelligent creator.