In an early post I presented my three refutations to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, see:
/natural-selection-is-not-evolution/
The three arguments were identified by the evidential refutation, the ontological refutation, and the metaphysical refutation, respectively. I have now finished going through each of these arguments in turn, adding details to facilitate better understanding.
I refashioned the metaphysical argument, and presented this essay.
/on-affection-and-self-interested-logic/
I refashioned ontological argument, and presented this essay:
/assumed-randomness-and-geometry-can-hide-teleology/
I refashioned the evidential argument, and presented this essay.
/leading-to-the-rejection-of-natural-selection-based-on-evidence/
I immediately followed each of the three new essays with two contemporary news stories (or editorials) that were found relevant, so there are a total of six news stories and you are invited to read them again. I have provided the following links if you want to check these supporting connections that I had found in the news.
The essay on-affection-and-self-interested-logic was supported by:
/confused-darwin-ethics-turns-to-music-and-lyrics/
/trust-issue-hits-global-warming-question/
The essay assumed-randomness-and-geometry-can-hide-teleology was supported by:
/touted-proof-of-natural-selection/
/fins-coopted-and-turned-into-limbs/
The essay leading-to-the-rejection-of-natural-selection-based-on-evidence was supported by:
/michael-ruse-looks-at-complexity-in-evolution/
/ten-years-after-the-human-genome-became-known/
So I did a lot of work to make these arguments stronger.
The three arguments have a natural flow, given by the transitions dealing with the ontological refutation, the evidential refutation, and metaphysical refutation, in that order, see:
(1) Ontological refutation
Our thinking might start with the belief that teleology is not testable science. But then we note the contradiction that natural selection is said to explain teleology while natural selection sees itself as a testable science. Demonstrating that teleology can hind in the preconditions of natural selection, the assumed random variation coming from mutations and the assumed fitness landscape, reveals that natural selection cannot distinguish itself from teleology on ontological grounds. Therefore, we are forced to look to evidence to see how a now assumed natural selection is different from teleology.
(2) Evidential refutation
But looking at the evidence fails to make any useful distinctions, and the assumed natural selection may just be masking teleology. The apparent evolution is found getting more and more complicated as we dig deeper into molecular biology, leading to complexity that was completely unanticipated by a belief in natural selection. Teleology is found remaining apparent, as much so as the apparent beauty that is found confronting the rational mind on a nature walk; this confrontation never weakens. What has been gained now is the knowledge that Darwin’s natural selection was only said to explain teleology, but when looking at the details the arguments were found to be empty. The watchmaker cannot be asserted to be blind!
(3) Metaphysical refutation
We are left with the apparent puzzle until reality hits us. It is life’s vitality that drives the apparent teleological evolution. It is life’s vitality that gives impetus for the said struggle for survival. It is vitality that relates to self-interested logic, and all human logic is self-interested. Therefore, to understand life and reality there must be a universal grammar that permits self-cultivation of what is now felt and self-evident. It is self-evidence that permits a deeper study into transpersonal psychology and complementary medicine. It is self-evidence that relates to Trinitarian philosophy, the subject of my book.