Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Lack of comments and the tactics toward dissenters

December 31st, 2011 · No Comments

Richard comments on “Should you despair of the Darwin debate?”

Richard said,
December 30, 2011 at 11:42 pm · “Truth hides itself, and is rarely a public reality.”

That isn’t the only thing that hides itself. Hell…we already know that all of the big players in the evolution debate (ID and Darwinian) read this blog anonymously. It’s funny that they don’t know how to engage this blog (both parties must have made a tacit agreement not to mention it since it is too subversive to both of them), since it doesn’t fit into either side’s mental parameters.

You are right, and I am often puzzled myself here, but I know from what happened years ago ca. 2006 when a number of Darwinists went out of their way to comment here, briefly, and then announced they would comment no more. After that a wall of silence began. But, you are right, there are a lot of anonymous readers here. I think of Ruse who has produced two books commenting without direct reference to me on my considerable, and constant discussion of the philosopher Kant. I have tried to correct his amateurish confusions here, but Ruse will never acknowledge in public any connection to me. The same for Alan Wood who suddenly several years ago began commentary on Kant’s views of history, obviously trying to scotch my Kantian philosophy of history discussion. And that discussion is not even controversial, but Kant scholars are terrified when someone points out that Kant could never have been a Darwinist, or that he created teleomechanism. And then a group of scholars produced a whole tome on Kant’s essay, obviously intended to block me: they wouldn’t even answer an email. Look at my discussions of Kant, it is almost elementary, so their silence has to be something else, fear. Alan Wood was fixated on the idea Kant was a historical materialist, which is nonsense. The same is true of Karen Armstrong’s book on the Axial Age, and there are many other examples. I suspect the same in Bellah’s book on the Axial Age. My interpretation is a big threat to them. I know that thousands of term paper hounds read my web sites every semester, and many professors are aware of this. I should be fair and note that Bellah is almost as ignored as I am. Any reference to the Axial Age produces this syndrome.

The real issue is that of public exposure. The establishment will say nothing until a theshold of publicity is the case, and any real threat to the public paradigm arises. Then they attack with a vengeance, as with the ID groups. Their first rule of censorhip is to NEVER relate to dissenters, thus giving them exposure. And academics are, I must say it, insular snobs. They are part of a very lucrative system, where dissent coulde prove fatal. Finally, it is simple fear: few would dare debate me. My case is almost overwhelming. They couldn’t win the argument anymore. There are many other issues here that block others. Population genetics leaves most paralyzed, some tough math will silence amateurs. Declare it science, and they are muffled. That won’t work with me (or with David Berlinski, a crackshot mathematician who reaches near fart levels with pop gen) because I have studied a lot of math. Pop gen is a fascinating subject, but its fallacies also run deep. It is not a candidate for a kind of ‘Newtonian mechanics’ of genes.

But the tactics of ignoring critics have backfired because the reign of the paradigm is weakening, this blog not being the full story of course. But the slow erosion from commentary such as this is real. (We just broke the 500k page views barrier this month! Proof that people are reading the archives. And at the Gurdjieff Con page views actually rose last month even though I barely posted more than three or four times in the month). All this stuff will be googled and remain there.

Part of the problem is that academics are simply not very intelligent by the time they get ‘fixed’ by education on the issue of Darwinism. They only look intelligent to the general public which freezes in awe at the thought of anyone who reads more than one book a year, if that.

Ruse is a sad case of this: obviously an intelligent man ‘rubbed out’ by Darwin brainwashing. You would think Ruse would make some use of the immense resources of Kant scholarship available to any academic such as himself. He could at least have obtained a copy of Lenoir’s book on the Kantian teleomechanists before shooting his mouth off on Kant. But no, the Darwin canon can grind out answers for anything, and Kant goes down the drain. So, while I have my faults, it is often the case that I have done superior work here (by default, to be sure) to what academics do. It is unfair to the public that is forced to fawn before credentials. As the Ruse case shows, it wouldn’t be hard for so many ‘experts’ to counter me, but even that small thing they can’t manage. Better to never engage.

The dumbing down effect is considerable. And look at Darwin’s theory. It sounds like it was designed for adolescent sports mentality, the locker room competition theme, next stop the business office mantra. The resemblance is suspicious.
Dawkins is a past master of making people stupid even as he makes them think they are smart (for embracing Darwinism). That is one of the strange sides to the Darwin game: the way in which the smartest in many cases are conditioned to be dumb Darwinists by the academic system. It is a powerful tool in the hands of the establishment who can generate the illusion of expertise. And threaten all students with failure if t hey won’t parrot Darwinian answers on stressed out examinations, crucial for school success.
And, of course, there are many specialized issues that academic experts are good at. But the high-level question of evolution eludes them, in part because it is not amenable to science in the way generally considered, e.g. in physics.

I think that the ID people have both confused the issue, and broken the back of Darwinism, only to replace that with another hard paradigm that is highly questionable. I have no quarrel as such with design arguments: it is not needed. There is one issue, and one only: prove your case. That they can’t do. The resemblance of ID and Darwnism is ironic, and Darwin’s argument is really the same ‘design magic’ in disguise: a ‘funny something’ produces complex organisms (leave out the ‘d’ word).

It is hard to know what will happen. But half a million page views per month is close to red alert for the Darwin estab. Fasten your seat belts.
I am mindful of Soren Lovtrup’s statement about the Darwin fraud. When the illusion finally bursts, people will ask how it could ever have happened.
In the meantime, it is not true that ‘experts’ have all the answers here. Outsiders like me can do better, as long as the professionals are mesmerized by groupthink.
By the way, there is no arrogant boasting here. Challenging Darwin is dead easy, once you see the problem. Then, come hell or high water, the defenses of the paradigm are always wrong. It is dead easy to answer to them.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment