I was reading in Who Can You Trust? How Technology Brought us Together and Why It Might Drive Us Apart by Rachel Botsman (2017) and about half way through I came across this:
According to Floridi (Luciano Floridi, professor of philosophy and ethics of information at the University of Oxford, also on Google’s advisory committee on the European Union’s ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling), there have been three critical ‘de-centring shifts’ that have altered our view in self-understanding: Copernicus’s model of the earth orbiting the sun; Darwin’s theory of natural selection; and Freud’s claim that our daily actions are controlled by the unconscious mind. (There is a reference link to this article about Disney however I don’t see the relevance. It might be a mistake.)
The book considers modern technology as potentially being the fourth ‘de-centring shift’ but that is not where I’m going with this.
I’ll say, first of all, that in my opinion Freud had some pretty messed up ideas about relationships between parents and siblings. We must be careful about revering everything a person says although we need to give credit for valid insights.
Copernicus’ model definitely affected modern thinking at the time and it of course led to the attempt to sail around the world.
Regarding Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory—the basis of the evolution theory—I cannot say how many times I’ve heard the “evolution theory” referred to as a matter of fact, in terms like, “based on evolution…” and no longer considered as a theory. There is a difference. However, academics literally scoff if you question evolution.
The evolution theory has been taught in academia over the decades and it appears that, if anything, the “theory” has evolved into fact. Plenty of evidence challenges this presupposition. The main convincing argument for me is that components of organisms could not function without the simultaneous presence of other mechanisms. In other words, for a species to survive, it could not have developed its various components in sequence, one after another as in evolution. Each had to be there for the other at the same time in order to function.
I can envision how an evolution theory, as a very broad concept, may have resulted from the observation that complex things bear resemblances to simple things and build upon similar basic structures. But it does not follow that they evolved from them, no matter how tantalizing the thought. I would compare that to saying that a photograph evolved from a tree because it is similar organically. I grant that some species have made adaptations but adapting to flying in actuality might be very beneficial to humans. But given that we have not developed wings, there are advantages to having a monkey tail.
Yesterday my husband went salmon fishing and this is what led me into this train of thought. In fall fishermen in waders line the local rivers, hoping to reel in the maximum daily limit imposed by Freshwater Fishing Regulations. Fisherman rely on reports of where the salmon are on their journey upstream.
My husband’s buddy caught a male salmon and he caught a female one. He showed me the shrink-wrapped packages of meat his friend delivered to our door this morning. I noted that the female coho meat was a few shades lighter than the male. I asked if the males swim upstream too. What a foolish question. They have to, he told me, to fertilize the eggs when the females are spawning.
My next question was not quite as foolish. “What happened before the male salmon realized they needed to fertilize the eggs?”
Every two years the specific run of salmon leave the ocean and return to the location where they originally hatched and there they lay their eggs and die. That is the life cycle of salmon on the Pacific Coast.
My question was an “evolution question.” I have a hundred questions in the line of what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Supposing that male and female salmon evolved. Supposing that the female even developed to the point of laying eggs, without questioning why the male developed without this capacity. My question is still, How did the male salmon, which has fertilizing capacity, know where and when to use it?
How does the male know he needs to fertilize some eggs that don’t yet exist and will be laid somewhere up the river where he is destined to die?
If male salmon remained in the ocean they could thrive and die of old age. This would be the environment of choice for survival by all appearances. They have adapted to saltwater. They are no longer adapted to freshwater. Instead the salmon leaves this ideal environment and begins a trek to certain death.
Salmon stop feeding as they transition from saltwater to freshwater and begin to swim upstream. Their body deteriorates. Within about two weeks they are dead. But first eggs are laid and fertilized.
Back to my original question, What happened before male salmon began to fertilize eggs? We can picture that since no eggs were fertilized, no salmon hatched, and no salmon swam back to the ocean. After all that complex development, this was the end of that particular evolutionary process which evolutionists will tell us must have repeated itself many times before it was successful. All is based on infinite repetitions yet gives no explanations for oceans and air with oxygen content essential to life, soil rich with nutrients necessary for growth, rain cycles, warming from the sun and so on.
The evolution theory is not the explanation we are looking for to explain the world around us. What baffles me is that academics uncritically profess it as fact.
Thank you for reading. I look forward to hearing your view.
I have to share with you something similar I wrote. We are both on the same page here. Great article.