Csicop on the beat

One Longsome Argument
http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/evolution.html
By any objective measure, the evolution of species ranks among the most successful scientific theories ever. So why is the message not getting through?

_______

This article from Skeptical Enquirer at least gets one thing right. It has been one long argument. longsome, but not lonesome. Perhaps one reason is that Darwin's theory is not really one of the most successful at all, but the most persistent. Like Newton's first law, the momentum of unchanging delusion continues ad infinitum until budged by some force.

That's actually the problem with Darwin's theory, so-called. It is not a theory at all. It is as if Newton's second law were absent. Darwin's 'theory' is the original crank theory, some crank has to grind out answers, and that crank is 'natural selection'.
The article bemoans the conditioning of children as the force of continuity here. That is certainly the relevant variable, but it works both ways. Converts to modern science in the Age of Big Science suffer the same syndrome, and are systematically miseducated with bad science methodology to the point that a kind of obtuseness is visible, even to Creationists.
There is no other explanation for the sheer inertia of Darwinian thinking in otherwise 'brilliant' cadres of technically expert science types. It should never have happened that way, and we can see from the original stage of the 'long argument', the period of the first reviewers of Darwin, that the a job of conditioning minds got underway (note the tactics of Huxley) that made the intuitive skepticism and doubts of those early critics seem passe. But it was obvious from the onset that something was awry in Darwin's thinking.

The article castigates those who think human origins are different, and that this belief has been discredited. It is certainly the case that the measure of unity of life ought rightly to include humanity, at least at the level of organismic functionality. But the problem is that modern reductionist science has brought into existence an ostrich attitude to who and what man is. If what really constitutes man is the result of evolution, then it has to explain the actual man history shows.
Wallace, we should note, saw the trap here and intelligently changed his views. He thought, despite being more Darwinian than Darwin, at first, that man's potential could not be explained by Darwin's theory.
Go to Google and type in 'Shiva seal', and look at the famous glyph of a meditating yogi from several millennia BC. What is this fellow up to? What is his exploration of consciousness? How early in the descent of man did such types appear?
Note that realizing one's potential of consciousness requires effort, is difficulty by any measure, results in dramatic changes in being, but is not the normal standard of human culture or life.
This is one preeminent case where the adaptational scenario of Darwinists makes no sense. Man has a potential that almost never gets energized, never interacts with the environment, yet is quintessentially a part of man, and has been from the beginning. What beginning? A theory of evolution ought to tell us.
But instead we have the age of Big Science that denounces even the mention of such things as New Age irrationalism.
Some one tell Mission control we have a problem here. Science has turned all the smartest people into dolts.
Even as the Tibetan Lamas duke it out in their voodoo wars, plotting against the government behind pious smiles, CSiSOP has been struggling for decades to deal with ESP statistics, in vain. Such things are not for the 'Brights' in Dawkins' quaint phrase trying to convince us that Creationists are stupid and Darwinists some pinnacle of geekish IQ.

If Darwinism continues programming this stupidity, human culture has no other option that to revive an ancient strain of culture that can carry people to the future beyond a cul de sac.
So if I were a Darwinist I would get someone to beat me on the head a few times. This isn't the fittest way to survive at all.
It's almost embarrassing. The modern view of man has lost something known to yogis five millennia ago. Probably longer.

Keep on trucking. Hope you make it.
Wallace at least slipped away in time.
From the article:

Dennis R. Trumble



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Darwin liked to describe the origin of species as "one long argument," but his extensive treatise in support of biological evolution now seems painfully brief compared to the argument that has followed in its wake. Indeed, never in the history of science has a more prolonged and passionate debate dogged the heels of a theory so thoroughly researched and repeatedly validated. And the end is nowhere in sight. Despite all evidence to the contrary, a large portion of the world's population continues to cling to the belief that human beings are fundamentally different from all other life forms and that our origins are unique. It's a lovely sentiment to be sure, but how is it that so many people continue to be drawn to this thoroughly discredited notion?


John Landon
World History
And The Eonic Effect
2nd Edition
Selections from new edition &
Darwiniana: Evolution Blog
http://eonix.8m.com