Natural selection is an explanation and not pre-conceived.
That is a pretty profound assertion. Firstly, I would argue if that's the case, then the theory of evolution is circular.
But what did Darwin say, in the Origin of the Species?
"How will the struggle for existence, discussed too briefly in the last chapter, act in regard to variation? Can the
principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature?"
"This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection."
"I am well aware that this
doctrine of natural selection, exemplified in the above imaginary instances..."
"On the belief that this is a
law of nature, we can, I think, understand several large classes of facts..."
"Thus it will be in nature; for within a confined area, with some place in its polity not so perfectly occupied as might be, natural selection will always tend to preserve all the individuals varying in the right direction"
"which may be effected in the long course of time by nature's power of selection."
Sure looks like Darwin used it as an axiom, unless "law", "principle" and "dogma" means something else to you than it does to me. If not, what axioms did he use to interpret his observations? What principle then underlies natural selection? If there is nothing underlying it, on what basis should we believe it?
The fact that he assigned power to nature is in direct opposition to a religious worldview, in fact, it's the creation of a new religious worldview. How would you distinguish between the "power of selection" over the "power of creation"? Both attempt to explain the origin of species.
But what beliefs did his student and spokesperson Huxley hold?
"yet I found that, whatever route I took, before long I came to a tall formidable-looking fence. Confident as I might be in the existence of an ancient and indefeasible right of way, before me stood the thorny barrier with its comminatory notice board - 'No thoroughfare - By order, Moses.'... The only alternatives were to give up my journey which I was not minded to do - or to break the fence down and go through it."
Do you honestly think that these were the remarks of a neutral scientist? It sure seems to be a preconception that directly influenced his work.
Furthermore, if evolution was held to be true, then we could not know it. Neo-darwinism holds that blind, random, naturalistic processess are responsible for all life, including man. These processes are not rational, they are a-rational. From this it follows that our brain is the result of the same processess, and since it was our brains that came up with the ToE, what reason do we have to believe the product of blind, random, a-rational processess?
Darwin himself struggled with that, by the way:
""With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy."
I'm sure we will continue.....
