Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Perhaps history holds the key

March 31st, 2009 · 1 Comment

History And Evolution, Darwinian Or Eonic?

Why is it that we take evolution to be purely genetic? Think about it. Is it merely a convenience for reductionists to define evolution in terms of a tangible entity? The problem is that this way of defining evolution throws our thinking out of whack. But it is a frustrating situation: we confine ourelves to the observable,and the results are misleading. The unobservable, if we can infer something, may hold the key.
There are many ways to define evolution. After all, ‘cosmic evolution’, the province of physicists, is not subjected to Darwinism/Darwinists. It has its own canon.
The same, we suspect strongly, applies to much of what is routinely put under the rubric of Darwinian evolution.
Especially the evolution of man, which noone has ever properly explained (or even observed) using Darwinian natural selection.
Further, the question of history suggests we are missing something. It is strange, at first, to bring evolution into history. But then you realize that many things are described with the term ‘evolution’. So in principle there is no problem here.
The point is to find a genuine process that deserves the term, in history.
Not hard to find! The data of the eonic effect foots the bill to a tee, but in its own way, and according to its own definition. And this leads us to wonder what the connection is with the earlier evolution of man. We become suspicious that we have misdefined it using reductionist genetics, whose problems are easy to point to.
Perhaps history holds the key.

Tags: Evolution · History

1 response so far ↓

  • 1 Stephen P. Smith // Mar 31, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    What would the “observable” be without the “unobservable” context that provides the basis of history? No much! The unobservable context sources the space-time fabric again. And so a theory of space-time is needed to explain evolution, but such a theory belongs with Kant’s metaphysics. I believe progress can be made getting beyond metaphysics (as Hegel noted), while others do not.

Leave a Comment