05.24.09
If a paradigm shift is no longer possible…
Darwinism has confused us, and confused scientists. It is a runaway idea that, due to its strange appeal to some, is applied wherever biologists can get away with it, it seems. They can’t get away with it at the origin of life, and they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it on the evolution of man (and probably much else).
It should be obvious that natural selection only applies in a limited way, and doesn’t have a full claim on the word ‘evolution’. The study of history brings this home very clearly, and shows us directly the way that natural selection actually distorts historical development.
But the idee fixe is an obsession with ‘scientists’.
Where will it end, if a paradigm shift is no longer possible?
The evolution of man is, and remains, a complete mystery. There is something almost mythological in the projection of Darwinian scenarios of natural selection onto the Paleolithic. Such evidence as we have is mostly that of skeletal remains, highly incomplete, of a series of hominids stretched over millions of years. Dogmatism in such a situation takes on an almost religious character in Darwinists. In the midst of this void of hard information we are to believe that all the complex functions of the human advance are to be ascribed to processes of natural selection and adaptation. Such claims, pressed into service for metaphysical conclusions, are weak in their evidentiary basis. In contradiction to this, flagrantly out in the open, is the evidence of a Great Explosion in the period around 50,000 B.C. As if crossing a threshold homo sapiens suddenly begins to leave traces of all the forms of higher culture that are characteristic of man as we find him in history. The suddenness and depth of this rapid passage, if we can trust the data, call out for explanation beyond the standard and very vague claims of mysterious mutations. This is really a question of what we mean by ‘macroevolution’, as opposed to ‘microevolution’. Is not Darwin’s theory really one of microevolution? The problem is that observing anything that resembles macroevolution demands a very detailed record of evolutionary sequences, and this invokes a crisis of correct observation.