So we all know the neo-Darwinian synthesis is complete bullshit and "evolution" (as it is currently understood) is...

So we all know the neo-Darwinian synthesis is complete bullshit and "evolution" (as it is currently understood) is propaganda for convincing people that life has no sanctity and the universe has no purpose and therefore we should all just jack off into paper towels and eat high fructose corn syrup like pathetic apes until time comes to an end.

But what are the best alternative metaphysics for a renewed science of evolution, to replace the "science" of "evolution" as it is currently taught? Process philosophy? Henri Bergson? William James? Maybe some crazy Schelling shit?

Biosemiotics or Objective Gnosticism, if you still want some Materialism.

How about a metaphysics that acknowledges the truth of the matter: one that admits that there are no selves, souls, or persons--a philosophy that admits that there is only an all-consuming darkness that tugs us along like puppets, and that this nightmare of being should never have arisen.

There is literally nothing wrong with belief in evolution.

I would recommend Wolfgang Smith, he's a physicist who wrote on scholastic metaphysics and evolution.

It's one of the strongest purported markers of Objective Time, which is in turn one of the strongest purported markers of Objectivity itself, integral to the idea that Phenomena are causal agents axiomatic in preceding and outlasting you, thus abating the realization that there is no life to live, no things to do, and no death to release you; only a nightmare to wake up from.

>life has no sanctity and the universe has no purpose and therefore we should all just jack off into paper towels and eat high fructose corn syrup like pathetic apes until time comes to an end.
How does this necessarily follow?
Props for making a thread about my nigga Bergson by the way.

>there are actually first world nations where people are creationist

Bergson was thoroughly demolished by Rene Guenon in "The Reign of Quantity", which incidentally is a good starting point for an alternative metaphysics, as you put it, along with another of his books "Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines". You're welcome, OP.

>criticizing evolution as it is currently taught means you're some protestant crank tier creationist

Are you criticising interpretations of evolution, or the truth-value of evolutionary theory, or some part of it, or some manner in which it is taught

Yes, it does. That's the only motivation anyone would have for doubting it.

Modern Synthesis is a Dualist idea. It has more unfalsifiable, unobservable, and unknowable aspects than your average Christian Ontology. It even explicitly invokes "magical thinking" with ideas like invisible hands or axiomatic Teleology.

What are some resources you can recommend that go into the criticisms you're referencing in greater detail?

wat
>In the 1920s and 1930s the so-called modern synthesis connected natural selection and population genetics, based on Mendelian inheritance, into a unified theory that applied generally to any branch of biology. The modern synthesis explained patterns observed across species in populations, through fossil transitions in palaeontology, and complex cellular mechanisms in developmental biology. The publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 demonstrated a physical mechanism for inheritance. Molecular biology improved our understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Advancements were also made in phylogenetic systematics, mapping the transition of traits into a comparative and testable framework through the publication and use of evolutionary trees. In 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky penned that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," because it has brought to light the relations of what first seemed disjointed facts in natural history into a coherent explanatory body of knowledge that describes and predicts many observable facts about life on this planet.

>Since then, the modern synthesis has been further extended to explain biological phenomena across the full and integrative scale of the biological hierarchy, from genes to species. One extension, known as evolutionary developmental biology and informally called "evo-devo," emphasises how changes between generations (evolution) acts on patterns of change within individual organisms (development). Since the beginning of the 21st century and in light of discoveries made in recent decades, some biologists have argued for an extended evolutionary synthesis, which would account for the effects of non-genetic inheritance modes, such as epigenetics, parental effects, ecological and cultural inheritance, and evolvability.

>So we all know the neo-Darwinian synthesis is complete bullshit and "evolution" (as it is currently understood) is propaganda
i honestly don't. plese explain or refer me to some shit

Why are you posting this? I know what Modern Synthesis is.

There is no data suggesting any one trait has any reproductive relevance. There is no measure of any one life form's compatibility with its surroundings. There is nothing supporting the idea of transgenerational metamorphosis other than Aesthetic similarities. There is nothing against which to test basal ideas like "species", "reproduction", or even "life" other than human consensus.

Them and Lynn Margulis.

Gurdjieff

...

this fucking thread

Go to bed Darwin, Lamarck is back!

A theory is usually used in order to have science progressing.

It is an aberration that this theory (that is lacking a solid ground) was used that much in philosophical systems.
Hopefully these systems, especially marxism and freudism, belong to the past.

Stick to spiritualist realism (thomism).