08.26.08
WHEE selection: history and evolution
In response to the question about history and evolution, here is a passage from World History And The Eonic Effect
The issue of history and evolution is a confusing one, and it seems as if we are making a category error. But consider the following question: when did evolution stop and history begin? This tricky question will trip up the Darwinian approach and leave it to collapse in a contradiction. The answer of course is that there couldn’t be an instantaneous switch. We can see that to set a specific date is contradictory. So we must specify a transition between evolution and history. What form would this hybrid take, passing from evolution to history? Either it is all evolution or all history?? Or maybe a series of mini-transitions with evolution dominant then history dominant. In alternation. Now look at the eonic effect: it speaks not just of evolution, but of history and evolution, the two braided together, with history emerging from evolution. And this eonic effect takes the form of a sequence of alternating periods, with evolution (in our sense) dominant during eras of transition, and co-related periods with history (in our sense) dominant. Thus we actually see in history the data matching the deduction about transitions, passing from evolution to history.
If we pursue the eonic effect and its model in detail we find a formal definition of ‘eonic evolution’ and ‘history as free action’ with the two braided together in a drumbeat alternation pattern. This is defined as an ‘evolution of freedom’ in a purely formal fashion. As ‘freedom evolves’ (in this sense) history comes into being. The enigma of the Axial Age, for example, yields at once to this kind of analysis. The question of a category error is irrelevant, really. We assume evolution is solely genetic, and that biologists have the defining standard. But they don’t. The term ‘evolution’ means ‘rolling out’, and ‘eonic evolution’ means the rolling out of civilization in the context of the eonic effect. We see that there is a ‘macroevolution’ involved with this. Note that we use the term ‘evolution’ in a host of contexts, economics, art, philosophy, any category. Do we forbid those too? Those usages are just as valid (and maybe as incoherent) as the Darwinian. Darwin never actually used the word, in his first edition.
So our ‘eonic evolution’ is correct, because that’s the way we define it. Fine, but then what does this have to do with some Darwinian definition (just as valid therefore as ours, i.e. genetic evolution). The answer is that Darwinian evolution probably doesn’t account for the complexity we see taken care of by another set of processes. The answer thus is that ‘eonic evolution’ takes up five (probably ten) thousand years of human history, and is better documented than the Darwinian, which is speculative, in fact. Ten thousand years isn’t much, but it is one twentieth of the way to 200000 BCE, the supposed source of anatomically modern man. That’s no vanishing percentage. Something has to give. Either Darwin is right and our evolution is wrong, or Darwin wrong and our approach is right (or at least hints at the right approach) for the higher complexity that actually emerges. Ten thousand over two hundred thousand is a tight fraction. You can have only one elephant in a room that size. So, we have ten thousand years, with good evidence indeed over five thousand of that (since the invention of writing). Data at the level of centuries or less.
And that evidence shows macroevolution of the type of the eonic effect. And what do Darwinists have? Nothing in fact. Darwinists don’t have a single stretch of evolution at the level of detail of the eonic effect. Nowhere. And this leaves the question all over again, when did evolution stop and history begin? Apply this to the Paleolithic. The history factor is certainly there with early men. We might conjecture that an early form of our ‘eonic evolution’ (i.e. drumbeat alternation over a scale of ten thousand years) might well be an aspect of the so-called Great Explosion. Speculation, of course, but on a par with Darwinian speculation. The Darwinian account of man’s descent is incoherent. Anatomically modern man appears ca. two hundred thousand years ago. Seems like a long time. But man has remained virtually static for the last fifty thousand. That leaves the Darwinist about a hundred fifty thousand years, or less, for his slow evolution, since the last fifty thousand is static (apart from genetic drift). If fifty thousand shows very little change, three time fifty thousand isn’t going to be the answer, in Darwinian terms. Something is suspiciously missing here. At this point the obscure ‘Great Explosion’, never quite defined or observed, but intuited, is posited. Hardly surprising. So something doesn’t add up in Darwin on man. Darwinists have to face this fact, but won’t. We hear ridiculous nonsense about some magic mutation that pulled behaviorally modern man out of a hat. I certainly wouldn’t claim to prove it, but the eonic efffect ought to be relevant here, for it shows truly rapid high speed change able to occur globally in short ranges over five to ten thousand years, operating in drumbeat alternation. Fits the bill for what Darwinists are looking for.
We can make no hard claims for this, but we are certainly not required to take Darwinists seriously once we see the eonic effect in history. Of course, the eonic effect can’t explain the genetic evolution of early man. But can Darwinists explain it either? We would be forced to assume some combination of something like the eonic effect is mixed with genetic evolution in very very early man. We won’t speculate, and simply note that overall the eonic effect falsifies Darwin on man.
Darwinists can’t snap out of it, but it is factual that they have no conclusive evidence of claims of natural selection. Finally, consider two cones, overlapping, one emerging from the other, like a cornucopia. That’s something like the relationship between history and evolution. In the beginning (macro) evolution is dominant, history minimal (passivity of man), then history starts to emerge as (macro) evolution continues but begins to wane and leave man to his devices. Finally evolution fades out, as history (human free action) becomes dominant. One cone goes to a point, the other emerges from a point to become a cone. That shows how the conflict of the two ideas is illusory. Actually they are tailor-made for each other.