History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

An exercise for buddhists: following the ‘eonic effect’ (i.e. an evolutionary/historical periodization)

June 9th, 2011 · 1 Comment

Climbing Mt. Improbable: The Eonic Effect

Buddhists, and anyone else who wants a more realistic sense of the meaning of evolution, should sit down and consider the eonic effect, both in itself, and as a falsifying tactic against Darwinian nonsense. The ‘eonic effect’ is not a theory, but a periodization of world history that shows conclusively that a non-pattern is visible to the naked eye, with all the implications of that surprising fact. The demonstration is ultra simple: every Table of Contents in a book on world history must show it, perhaps in disguise.

Follow the chronicle of evolution in history without theories. That’s enough. As to earlier stages of man, the evidence is simply not clear. The claims of Darwinists are completely unproven, and omit mention of the crucial issues, e.g. soul, language, self-consciousness, and the ‘buddha’ phenomenon. Darwinism can’t even mention these things, let alone explain them.

The idea is simple, simple: our theories of evolution are misleading us, so let us retreat to empirical constructs showing the facts of evolution in a chronicle of emergent enties, from organisms to history.
If we apply that tactic to history we see a very distinct ‘evolutionary emergence’ data set that can tell us something about evolution in general.
The material on the eonic effect is, unfortunately, too complicated, but the basic idea is simple: simply examine world history. It can never fit into a reductionist framework. That’s it. History is about free agents, the creation of values, and a reductionist theory can never handle free agents, or the question of values.

In fact, there is no theory of evolution in the current sense of theose words. There is no science of evolution, yet. And for those reasons.
You can’t wriggle around that. Science, as known, is wrong at the first step. Our science. Not nature’s, if we could but understand it. But we can follow ‘evolution’ by tracking it, and that is illuminating.

I think if you follow the ‘eonic effect’ (and use a different term if you dislike that one, e.g. macro effect) and its accompanying facts, like the Axial Age, you will see that even though the ‘theory’ fails (just as with the three body problem in physics) we can still track the phenomenon of evolution, here in history, with empirical descriptioons.
It is quite OK to object that evolution (which means a developmental logic in time) in history isn’t the same as the earlier evolution of man. Fine. Asserted. But where’s your proof? The existence of a macro logic in world history should be a shock, and severe warning, to those who make darwinian assumptions. Our historical logic is probably the same logic at work in the emergence of early man. We can’t be sure, but we can’t suspect that the Darwinian perspective can never work with human emergence.

It is finally our suspicion that a macro effect that transcends genetics is the only explanation for real approaches to evolution. The macro leads the genetic, we suspect. We can’t be sure, but the real evolution is one that is an abstract dynamics that transcends the purely genetic factor. Darwinists would thus seem to be completely out in left field

Tags: General

1 response so far ↓

Leave a Comment