History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Why the eonic model beats out Darwinism (on human evolution)

April 19th, 2009 · No Comments

The problem with Darwin’s theory of natural selection is that it over-focuses attention on the small. What of the possibility of invisible macro factors that stand beyond the action of the small-scale. Everything in the debate suggests something is being missed. But what is that? It is like gravitation in Newton’s time (no direct comparison is implied): something invisible and macro (in the sense of defying the point contact in the small of static or impulsive forces), a field, was required to make sense of the data, and Newton was able to proceed despite the charge that such fields where a violation of scientific method.
Darwin’s theory is a wishfulfilment for a desired oversimplification that will fit the requirements of reductionism. Who’s to say that will work? In fact it doesn’t work, and the whole approach is a dangerous temptation to focus on the small remaining blind to the effects in the large. And these latter processes are unforgivingly complex and intangible, as befits the complexities of human nature, and its claimed evolution.
This approach is also very amenable to the basically bureaucratic character of big science where enforcing paradigm discipline is immensely simplified with a ‘by the book’ oversimplication that can be used to indoctrinate science cadres. Once enough trainees are indoctrinated the paradigm reaches critical mass, and is hard to challenge. Those who challenge it tend to lack credentials, or credibility.
But it is all in vain.
If we can examine the small band of visibility that is offered to us by the data of the so-called ‘eonic effect’ the dangers of restricting observation to one narrow band, and the equal failure to take into account the need for very rich data, data only available in human history, become all too obvious.
There is a massive ‘carrier field’ of some kind behind evolutionary sequences, and this is what gives ‘evolution’ the edge against randomness. And it is something totally unaccounted for in the legacy of reductionism.
The data of the eonic effect begins to speak for itself as we start to track sequences at close range over many millennia. Then it becomes obvious that something analogous to, though much more complicated than, this kind of ‘carrier field’ is at work. It is beyond our ability to observe, but we can detect it from the data, which must be then approached with an entirely different style of enquiry.
The eonic effect: climbing Mt. Improbable

Tags: Evolution · selections · World History and The Eonic Effect

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment