11.06.08
Time to move on, standing up to Darwinism
The Darwin establishment is apparently too rigid to change. We need a populist revolt against Darwinism (not evolution), and a general public awareness of the failure of science on this issue.
As we saw yesterday with economics, it is not hard to stand up to the ideological abuse of economic reasoning, at least in principle. In fact, the subject of economics has a whole series of its own critics, who may not prevail against the tide of propaganda in public, but who can at least offer a critical perspective.
This is not true of Darwinism, which actually enforces its viewpoint and suppresses dissent, and its unreasonable domination of public discourse is a strange anomaly, with the attendant danger of the distortions in culture it is creating. Unlike economics, it has become an enshrined pseudo-science beyond challenge, save now by the Christian right.
I cannot support the design argument, but don’t need it to challenge Darwinism. But at least one social group has figured out they have been had by Darwinism.
You should do the same for yourself, at once.
The situation needs to change, because the long term damage to culture will prove catastrophic in the end if this narrow Darwinian mindset is successfully forced on the public.
It is not hard to stand up to this form of domination. Darwinists are not even very careful in what they do.
There are thus a whole series of ways to tune out, an important task since it is a mistake to base your worldviews on this error. You will realize later in life you have been had.
Keep in mind a few things:
Darwinism is bad science, so the issue of anti-science doesn’t arise
The basic debate is over natural selection, not the fact of evolution
noone has ever truly observed natural selection doing all the things claimed
natural selection is the key to upholding a worldview proposed by reductionists, without it, they have a weak hand, hence the adamant defense
and natural selection is almost certainly not the real source of evolution, whatever its place as a form of microevolution
the hardest part is standing up to the experts. But the ‘experts’ here are mostly a cadre of narrowly educated technical specialists who are almost adolescent in their attitudes. Their education is so specialized that they cling to Darwinism as a substitute for the hard work of studying in breadth. They are ruthlessly selected for university positions based on conformity. In a word, their word cannot be vouched for. Hordes of academics know that Darwinism fails, but say nothing.
Look at the Darwinian attempts to analyze religion, general culture, ethics, consciousness, etc. They amount to very little and produce counter-intuitive results. It is worth keeping in mind, for example, though most scientists won’t say so directly, that the viewpoint of Darwinism/scientism is that willed ethical consciousness is an illusion and therefore that the entire human tradition of ethics is a prescientific mistake. Reread that. This is not quite pointed out in public and will be denied under desperation, but that’s what the basic idea is.
We have no choice but to act for ourselves in this situation.
There is a lot more here, but that is something to start with.
I should hasten to point out that the religion/science debate is a distraction here, and religionists have equally incoherent answers.
There is a simple substitute: look at human history, and study that for ‘answers’. The claims for human evolution by natural selection are misleading and almost certainly false. We can’t deduce much of anything due to the lack of good data.
History has that data, and that’s your last resort, in all its ambiguity.
The attempt to redirect human culture, therefore, on the basis of Darwinism is a failure. And you have to stand up to it on your own.
————–
I should also add, from my viewpoint, that you can also pursue the question of history further in terms of the eonic effect, as you wish, once the realization dawns that history is your only source of information. This approach is too weird for people to begin with, so just start looking at history.