UDC: 165
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2025-3-11


viewing

ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN PROVISIONS AND FEATURES OF DARWINISM FROM LOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL POSITIONS

E. V. Degtyarev
Ural Higher School (Institute) of Social Sciences, Magnitogorsk, Russia
e-mail: filos.magnit@yandex.ru

Abstract. Nowadays, the ideas of evolutionism have penetrated into almost all spheres of human activity and, above all, into the area of rational knowledge. This has happened largely under the influence of Darwinism. Thus, Darwinism has acquired a very significant theoretical and cognitive status. In this regard, the study of Darwinism (its main provisions, features and «bottlenecks») from logical and gnoseological positions becomes very relevant. Thus, the author’s goal is to analyze the main provisions and features of Darwinism from logical and gnoseological positions. To achieve this goal, the following methodological apparatus is used, first of all: firstly, the method of structural and functional analysis, and secondly, the methodological approach, which we define as «antifideism», consisting in the inadmissibil¬ity (as far as possible) of constructing rational (including scientific) reasoning on faith, no matter how authoritative it may seem, contrary to facts, logic and reason.

As a result of the study, the author came to the conclusion that a number of the main provisions of Darwinism do not stand up to criticism from logical and epistemological positions. Many of them are illogical in their essence and are based not on rational and logical constructions, but on the faith of Darwinism’s adherents in their truth, despite the fact that they contradict the available facts.

Scientific novelty: firstly, the logical error of «unjustified extrapolation» of Darwinism was discovered and substantiated, consisting in the fact that an unjustified conclusion is made about the existence of interspecies evolution from the undoubtedly existing intraspecific evolution; secondly, it was substantiated that the process of Darwin’s vision of the origin of more developed species from less developed ones is internally contradictory and illogical from logical and epistemological positions; thirdly, it is substantiated that from the logical-epistemological positions, the belief of Darwinism’s supporters that the first cells in terrestrial conditions arose randomly is, in essence, a kind of belief in the supernatural; fourthly, the article proposes a kind of «Lego principle» as one of the possible epistemological foundations for interspecies studies of living organisms. The author’s recommendations regarding the possible direction of further research consist, along with the use of the «Lego principle», in taking into account certain logical-epistemological features and shortcomings of the Darwinian theory revealed in the article and the resulting need to introduce significant changes in the foundations (principles) of studying problems related to the origin and development of life.

Key words: logic, epistemology, Darwinism, evolution, faith, anti-fideism, the Lego principle.

Cite as: Degtyarev, E. V. (2025) [Analysis of the main provisions and features of Darwinism from logical and epistemological positions]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 3, pp. 11–24. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2025-3-11.


References

  1. Degtyarev, E. V. (2021) [Some aspects of the logical and philosophical understanding of history on the subject of science]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 6, pp. 115–122. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2021-6-115. (In Russ.).
  2. Degtyarev, E. V. (2020) [Philosophical analysis of the biological foundations of war as a social phenomenon]. Traditional national cultural and spiritual values as the foundation of Russia’s innovative development [Traditional national cultural and spiritual values as the foundation of Russia’s innovative development]. Vol 18. No 2, pp. 4–7. (In Russ.).
  3. Degtyarev, E. V., Karpova, E. V.(2020) [The art of expansionism: the specifics of Dutch domination]. Aktual’nye problemy sovremennoj nauki, tekhniki i obrazovaniya [Actual problems of modern science, technology and education]. Abstracts of the 78th International Scientific and Technical Conference, Magnitogorsk, April 20–24. Vol. 2. Magnitogorsk: Magnitogorsk State Technical University named after G. I. Nosov, pp. 260. (In Russ.).
  4. Karpin, V. A. (2022) [Problems of evolutionary biology: philosophical and methodological analysis]. Filosofiya nauki [Philosophy of Science]. Vol. 93. No 2, pp. 124–132. – https://doi.org/10.15372/PS20220209. (In Russ.).
  5. Subotyalov, M. A. (2023) [ The development of ideas about the functions of the organ of hearing]. Filosofiya nauki [Philosophy of Science]. Vol. 96. No 1, pp. 145–157. – https://doi.org/10.15372/PS20230109. (In Russ.).
  6. Shagiakhmetov, M. R. (2022) [ Global evolutionism and the development of society]. Filosofiya nauki [Philosophy of Science]. Vol. 92. No. 1, pp. 46–63. – https://doi.org/10.15372/PS20220104. (In Russ.).
  7. Crick, F. H. C., Orgel, L. E. (1973) Directed panspermia. Icarus. Vol. 19. No. 3, pp. 341–346. – https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(73)90110-3. (In Eng.).
  8. Fischer, J. (2014) Philosophical Anthropology: A Third Way between Darwinism and Foucaultism. Plessner’s Philosophical Anthropology: Perspectives and Prospects. ed. by J. de Mul. Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 41–55. – https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048522989-003. (In Eng.).
  9. Fogelin, R. J. (1985) The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic. Vol. 7. No. 1, pp. 1–8. – https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v7i1.2696. (In Eng.).
  10. Kinzel, K., Kusch, M. (2018) De-idealizing Disagreement, Rethinking Relativism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies. Vol. 26. No. 1, pp. 40–71. – https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2017.1411011. (In Eng.).
  11. Krüger, H.-P. T. (2019) How is the Human Life-Form of Mind Really Possible in Nature? Parallels Between John Dewey and Helmuth Plessner . Human Studies. Vol. 42. No. 1, pp. 47–64. – https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-017-9429-5. (In Eng.).
  12. Mattick, J. S., Dinger, M. E. (2013) The extent of functionality in the human genome. HUGO. Vol. 7. No. 2. – https://doi.org/10.1186/1877-6566-7-2. (In Eng.).
  13. Popper, K. (2002) Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. London: Routledge, pp. 151. – https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994252. (In Eng.).
  14. Pritchard, D. (2022) Hinge commitments and common knowledge. Synthese. Vol. 200. No. 186. – https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03647-5. (In Eng.).
  15. Richardson, M. K., et al. (1997) There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: impli¬cations for current theories of evolution and development. Anat Embryol (Berl). Vol. 196. No. 2, pp. 91–106. – https://doi.org/10.1007/s004290050082. (In Eng.).
  16. Ridder, J. de. (2019) Against quasi-fideism. Faith and Philosophy. Vol. 36. No. 2, pp. 223–243. – https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil201951123. (In Eng.).
  17. Ridder, J. de., Rannali, C.(2021) Still against quasifideism. Unpublished manuscript. In Smith P. S., Lynch M. P. Varieties of Deep Epistemic Disagreement. Topoi. Vol. 40, pp. 971–982. – https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-02009694-2. (In Eng.).
  18. Searle, J. R. (2002) Consciousness and Language. N. Y.: Cambridge University Press, 280 p. – https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511606366. (In Eng.).