04.15.06
Armstrong, Darwin, Eugenie Scott
One of the major faults of Armstrong’s book on the Axial Age is the complete silence on the subject of evolution. Examine the index, nothing on Darwin, Darwinism.
This is not an accident. As I noted several months ago, Armstrong and Eugenie Scott have interacted.
It is impossible to grasp the issues of the Axial Age without bringing in the issues of evolution, a point requiring some study. But obviously that is taboo, and one of the apparent strategies of Armstrong’s silly book is to efface anything controversial.
There is some manipulation going on here, though I can’t quite pin it down exactly.
Now, if you follow this game, you can put two and two together fairly easily.
Obviously, Armstrong has been ‘fixed’.
I find it interesting that I had a long debate on evolution and Axial Age at the Anthro-L list about two years ago, and was banned from the list, after an incident with the NCSE people there. Obviously the NCSE became aware of the Axial Age threat.
Moral: They don’t want you to figure out the Axial Age. Anything on that scale shows something that is not supposed to exist, and which seem rightly makes a mockery of Darwinism applied to the descent of man.
Note that religious groups are equally hostile to the Axial phenomenon.
Mr. Toad said,
April 16, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Let’s forego the jargon and new-agey rhetoric: first issue for any theists or mystics of any type is ontology: are there any good grounds for believing in immaterial and/or transcendent accounts of Mind ? Evolutionists, naturalists, materialists of all types say no; indeed it’s not clear whether Kant himself was holding to immaterialism. Here’s one fairly effective proof of the Mind’s biological interaction/foundation; a six-pack of your favorite brew–say Bitburger Pils. Then try to read some Kant.
Darwiniana » Deductions, transcendental said,
April 17, 2006 at 10:49 pm
[…] A comment to Armstrong, Darwin, Eugenie Scott Let’s forego the jargon and new-agey rhetoric: first issue for any theists or mystics of any type is ontology: are there any good grounds for believing in immaterial and/or transcendent accounts of Mind ? Evolutionists, naturalists, materialists of all types say no; indeed it’s not clear whether Kant himself was holding to immaterialism. […]