History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Evolution, religion, the Axial Age, macro/micro

August 9th, 2009 · 2 Comments

Beware of gurus and New Age hypesters pontificating on the subject of evolution. I strongly recommend a look at the sense of ‘evolution’ following the data on the eonic effect, from World History and the Eonic Effect, starting here: Mysterious drumbeat to begin to get a sense of the tremendous scale and complexity of ‘evolution’ in the descent of man.
It is not a simple subject, and gurus have no edge on the task of understanding it.
A long and meticulous study of world history armed with the ‘eonic model’ can help (up to a point, but I make no claim to understand ‘evolution’ either)
Note that none of the enlightened sages of antiquity even realized there was an Axial Age, and that their efforts were bound up in that process indirectly.
In retrospect we can see that they were unable to assess the scale of religous evolution. Ironically, Buddhism became one of the prime exemplars of an Axial Age emergentism. That period included much more than Buddhism, however. And the overall global pattern is vaster still.
But it is important to see that the modern New Age movement can’t replicate that period of renewal. It is a difficult dilemma, and the typical confusion created by Andrew Cohen and/or Ken Wilbur isn’t going to help.

Such a macro process is not going to be repeated in the modern New Age movement, so don’t let New Age hypesters pretend otherwise.

Note as you study the eonic effect the distinction between macro-action and micro-action, and its implications for the study of religion.
That might help to see just how confused Cohen’s use of the term ‘evolution’ is.

People claiming some higher spiritual knowledge or consciousness are getting in the bad habit of pontificating on evolution, and they are almost as bad as Darwinists.

Tags: Evolution · religion · The Axial Age · The Eonic Effect

2 responses so far ↓

Leave a Comment