07.02.09

The left, A.N.Wilson, and language evolution

Posted in Descent of Man Revisited, Evolution at 1:28 pm by nemo

Evolution’s revolution

Mike Belbin looks at the emergence of human culture and the vital role of symbolism
“Do materialists really think that language just ‘evolved’, like finches’ beaks …?” – AN Wilson, ‘Why I believe again’ New Statesman April 6 2009

“We are annoying to the leopard because our ancestor stole fire from theirs” – South Amerindian story

What kind of animal are humans? To the crude materialist we are, according to taste, chiefly animal; bundles of needs, habits and reactions; savage or simple. To the spiritual believer, animal matter required something extra, something originally separate, to become human. Is human culture then just another kind of animal behaviour? What does it mean to trace humanity’s development from nature to society? What is the ‘missing link’ between natural history and anthropology? If animals communicate, and they do, is there anything special about human language

The left hasn’t a clue on evolution, which is about the same condition liberals find themselves in. (and everyone else)
This quote from A.N. Wilson (who has done major Wobbles on atheism, now a ‘reconvert’) constitutes a threat to leftist/materialist thinking. The more so since all these people quoting Marx/Engels ad nauseam on these issues simply show their ignorance. And quoting Chomsky is also problematical: he is a postdarwinist who arm has been so twisted by Pinker that he can be considered a victim of torture: silenced.
How is the complex potential for language Chomsky depicts to have evolved?
At least Wilson doesn’t (here) propose the design argument.
These navie leftists are going to lost the argument for us. Time to really consider what Wilson is saying. It is dangerous thinking for old-fashioned nineteenth century materialist. The public is going to regress to religious traditionalism if the left/liberals keep spouting Darwin stupidities.

The study of the eonic effect can help here, if only to remind us that real evolution is so far beyond our current grasp that we may as well be chimpanzees on the subject: Check out the ‘evolution of art’ in the axial period,
Art, evolution, and the tragic genre

Beyond that, a new approach to evolution/universal history can be pursued in two essays here:
http://eonic-effect.net/index_top_1848.htm
http://eonic-effect.net/politics_of_evolution.htm

It is worth remembering that Marx talked materialism but was a post-Hegelian with a sense of ‘universal history’, as in the philosophy of history.
That’s closer to a form of an ‘atheist’ design argument than to materialism.

I wouldn’t be citing A.N. Wilson so glibly here.

Permalink