11.23.08
Evolutionary theories: a theoretical self-defense
Falsifying Darwinism: A theoretical self-defense
In the relentless promotion of violent evolutionary theories as ideology and the equal and opposite exploitation of the ambiguities of such theories in the resurrection of design arguments, the public is lost in a closed dialectic. We need a method of theoretical self-defense to achieve a basic sanity in a debate seeding another phase of the wars of religion. However, those religions tend naturally via their sense of universal history to choke on the extreme reductionism of Darwinian explanation. Confronted with a hopelessly botched theory that has genocidal implications, it is of great importance to see that evolution Darwin-style is simply not the case, and not confirmed by the evidence. We can at least quarantine world history from the misapplication of Darwin ’s theory.
From World History And The Eonic Effect
The public tends to be the victim of the professionalization of science. There is a wide range over which scientific authority seems to hold good, and where scientific methodology is followed. The public is acquiescent in the affirmation of scientific achievements. And this tends to induce a kind of willing passivity when confronted with the claims of scientific authority outside that range. This is especially insidious in biology where the findings of biochemistry or genetics, which have good scientific foundations, pass over into the claims for evolutionary theory, and its extensions, that with its imperialistic appropriation of all human knowledge. And it gets worse and worse as we ascend the scale of subjects, to the cultural, psychological, and philosophic.
It is just at this boundary between the two that we detect what, so far, is the limit area of ‘scientific range’.
The point is so obscured by the hype of false claims for universal scientific omniscience that we tend to trust the Darwinian theory. But this trust is misplaced. An unprecedented situation arises. In physics, we have carefully observed phenomena, subject to measurement, and tested against mathematical models. This ‘reality’ check plus a ‘math’ check yield a great precision. Then without warning we are in the realm of evolutionary research, where there is no reality check, and no math check, and a different mentality of science altogether where the perception that this is not yet science hardly even arises. Observations of deep time are very thin indeed, and the failure to provide a mathematical model of the phenomena under consideration is simply put on the sidelines. Perhaps no such models are possible, but then we are in a realm where the term ‘science’ must honestly be given a change of meaning, a task left unperformed by the disorganized and amateurish thinking of biologists.
Thus it is important to be able to defend oneself from biological claims that are short of real science. Imprinted at an early age by concealed ideological notions that will greatly influence one’s worldview, prospects, and behavior, one becomes the more limited in one’s response to the greater field of human culture. This theoretical self-defense is easily provided by the study of the eonic effect, which says that if we begin to reexamine evolution in the light of history, where we have direct observation of the complexities of human culture, we will start to ‘right’ ourselves with the real sustenance of human culture from the reduced and poisoned one-dimensionality of biological scientism/Darwinism.
The study of the eonic effect can be shunted into the background, or can be taken as no more than the simple study of history in a comprehensive fashion, the eonic effect like a Table of Contents. From there one may elect to take it to a deeper level, and to approach the issue of science and history, and evolution and history in terms of various types of models, there to detect a surprising degree of processes that in fact reconcile the contradictions of evolutionary causality and historical freedom.
http://eonic-effect.net