In order to understand this lie, one needs to understand a bit about how its authors thought. They knew the general public wasn't too keen on philosophy, and most wouldn't be aware of the
Dialectic FormulaA thesis can be seen as a single idea. The idea contains a form of incompleteness that gives rise to the antithesis, a conflicting idea. A third point of view, a synthesis, arises from this conflict. It overcomes the conflict by reconciling the truths contained in the thesis and antithesis at a higher level. The synthesis is a new thesis. It generates a new antithesis, and the process continues until truth is arrived at.
There are older versions, as
wiki attests. But they employed the more modern kind. Of course no thesis can truly be reconciled with its antithesis.
Some may have noticed that NeoDarwinism is called
"Modern Evolutionary Synthesis"In order to form a synthesis, one takes a thesis and battles it against its antithesis. In this case, Darwinism vs. Genetics. By labeling the product a synthesis, the evolutionists are saying the two are antithetical. It's an inside joke: the uneducated peasants won't figure it out - ha ha ha!
[i]Evolution: The Modern Synthesis[/i]", by Julian Huxley, was the vehicle for an odd mixture of ideas. Here's wiki's summary:
The modern synthesis bridged the gap between experimental geneticists and naturalists; and between both and palaeontologists, stating that:
1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered by natural selection. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).
3. Selection is overwhelmingly the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment. The role of genetic drift is equivocal; though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
4. The primacy of population thinking: the genetic diversity carried in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild was greater than expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
5. In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from micro to macro-evolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
In forming this compromise, some elements had to be removed from Darwinism, and some had to be removed from Genetics.
Please note my use of the term "compromise". It is more accurate than "synthesis". For a genuine synthesis is the result of a prolonged war between concepts - it is not the result of a treaty negotiated in order to maintain peace. They didn't even follow Hegel's formula correctly.
I expect some will be surprised to find that Genetics was the antithesis of Darwinism. Today evolutionists try to make them synonymous, and they've probably had some success sowing confusion. Studying the 5 points of the treaty would be helpful. Try to see what Darwinism lost in the compromise and what Genetics lost.
