Evolutionism versus creationism?
The great debate between the two opposing poles on the genealogy of ideas about the origin of life on Earth, obviously - if I refer to life in general I am extrapolating, or going beyond the scope of the debate on the origins of life - hides the real dilemma about the differences that oppose the two main sides on the question: where did life come from; how did it come from; and when did it arise?
The biggest difference between the two main sides on the debate on the origin of life was hidden by the most central metaphor, which neither side in the debate is clear about.
Evolutionism.
The scientific explanatory model about the origin of life begins with metaphysics, from which it is argued that insensitive matter relies on chance, on the brutality of a model of a universe without intelligence and that works through excessive attempts at the limit of infinity, and in this regression to infinity only luck and accidents can construct and replace pure and immaterial intelligence, obviously non-spiritual, or a-spiritual, with the pure and simple probabilistic model working with brute force, just to prove that it does not need: intentionality, nor intelligence, nor purposeful interference or anything other than the logic of feedback or the logic of inductivism of the law of large numbers, that is, the determinism of accomplished facts explaining a posteriori the true causes: that is, the consequences or results explain and choose the causes.
Things work out because the right causes were present in advance and by chance, but, certainly, the result is what justifies and creates the causes, in an inverted causality.
Evolutionism explains and justifies causes by consequent facts, and not the other way around, given that not every cause produces a certain predicted or predictable result, only a post-determined set of causes derived from the results, where the effects justify the causes.
The effects create and explain the true causes.
This heuristic mechanism of the law of evolutionism of species is an inverse causation where it is not known in advance whether all the laws of evolution will work: it is only known that they worked because they produced their effects never in advance by the same laws.
This is the epistemological problem of totally excluding intelligence and predictability in the evolutionary method.
There is no intentionality, nor is there any intelligence behind evolution, evolution is stupid, unintelligible, and unpredictable, it constitutes a system of beliefs in stupidity and in the total lack of: information and control; planning and division of functions and tasks in the process; lack of objective and purpose.
Evolutionism is an aberration in the world of: information, organization, intelligibility, rationality. It lacks purpose.
Assumptions of evolutionism:
a) there is no intelligence in the material universe;
b) the consequences (the effects - the facts) explain and justify their causes;
Creationism.
Creationism does not seek to bring intelligibility or rationality into its explanatory purpose, but points to the central presence of intelligence in the equation of life as a project endowed with coherence, rationality, control, administration and predictability.
Extracting the hypothesis that creation presupposes a creator, excluding the figure of the creator as an active actor, intelligence, not being a spirit, nor something material, would then be immanent to the universe without being part of any kind of entity in the universe, just an information system and as such a set of organized data and belonging to a protocol that can be manipulated by software that organizes the universe and presents itself to human intelligence in the form of scientific laws, or a decipherable and knowable set of laws of nature which we call scientific disciplines.
Who or what manipulates the knowledge of the laws of the universe and how do they do this?
The knowledge called creationism introduces the variable or factor omitted by evolutionism that excludes intelligence by imagining that intelligence is completely unnecessary as part of the process of development and creation of life.
Assumptions of creationism:
a) the universe is intelligent;
b) the universe is proactive and not simply passive and responsive.
Conclusions:
To overcome this impasse, self-admitted that there is no intelligence in the universe, evolutionists created a self-justification that eliminates the need for laws of nature other than dumb and indifferent chance, merely reactive without any proactivity, intelligence and predictability, everything is matter, everything is crude, everything is meaningless, everything is purposeless, and in the end the purpose arises from the circumstantial utility itself, attested and approved and used by the environment without a rationally premeditated project or design.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário