Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Outsiders needed on evolution question

April 18th, 2012 · No Comments

The pub date for Descent of Man Revisited is now Apr 20, and the book page now allows a ‘look inside the book’ (using the Kindle version, temporarily, without the images, the correct search-inside material is coming).

Scroll down for yesterday’s remarks on evolution. I think that it is hard for anyone to get oriented on evolution, in part because ‘evolution’ is not a scientific subject, really. Science can collect data, and propose hypotheses, but theories of evolution after the manner of physics and the standard sciences won’t work. So it is important to stand back from the confusion created by wrong thinking, now entrenched in the experts who control opinion.
Read the online introduction at the Look Inside option at the book page and find the passage on the requirements for a theory of evolution. Darwinism flunks all the requirements for a true theory. It is a fantasy promoted by those who have an agenda.
It is ironic that that agenda, among others, is now dramatically in evidence with the new atheists. There are others.
The point is that Darwinian natural selection is strange excercise in forcing people to believe counterintuitive things. It makes no sense, and yet all the experts endorse it (or remain silent in public).

So, I need not apologize for dealing with the issue of Darwinism as an outsider. Noone can even open their mouths with a dissenting view in official circles.

Evolution shows something science can’t analyze: the fact/value dichotomy in action in a hybrid action. This is not allowed in reductionist science. But nature wasn’t listening.

There is no science of evolution!

_____________________

Reposted from yesterday:
The book page for Descent of Man Revisited now allows a ‘look inside the book’ (using the Kindle version, temporarily, without the images, the correct search-inside material is coming). You can read the Introduction and get some idea of what the book is about. It has moved beyond the material in WHEE both in content, style, and length, and the book is a fun exploration, and a challenge to anyone on the left who is tempted to get lazy about Darwinism, not rock the boat, and let the old Social Darwinist paradigm remain in place. Time is up for that strategy, although many bigwigs will try to hold the clock back. Everyone will attack activists who don’t toe the line here, but the attack from the right for Darwinian propaganda will be fatal.
Your choice.
Let it be said, there is no Darwinian left anymore. The entire constellation of leftist busybodies can’t admit in public that Marx’s first reaction to Darwin was–‘ideology, British brand’. The right, despite their mania for ID, and outrageous concealed social darwinism of their own, has Darwinists perfectly in their gunsights, and the left will simply go down with that ship, needlessly, since there is a way out of the Darwin trap. You would do well to unplug from academic/biolgical/peer-reviewed dogma here and check out the clear exposes of the pseudo-science of Darwinism.
For a while longer, no doubt, this is a waste of breath. Too many ‘smart’ people defend Darwin, but they merely show that the head honchos of meritocracy are not so smart.

The question is simple: noone has ever observed evolution at close range, with one exception, and the result is the substitute fantasy of natural selection. The one exception is world history, and the result shows that 1. evolution is only secondarily genetic, 2. that real ‘evolution’ (or macroevolution) happens so fast (in a matter of centuries) that we never observe it deep time, confused by the slower spectacle of visible microevolution, natural selection, etc…

It will take time here, although time has run out. The OWS and other activist groups that remain with the old view of evolution should be charged with social darwinist ideology, and various other charges of cooptation.

I admit, to challenge Darwinism in the middle of attempts to court the public will seem to backfire, but the alternative in the end is worse: the right’s gleeful ‘I told you so’ on Darwinism in the easy attempt to expose leftist crypto-social/darwinism…. And it was historically equally dangerous in the Leninist version: the social darwinism of class warfare.
There is also Marx’s instinctive revulsion (and ‘I told you so’) concealed by his subsequent silence in the regime established by Engels.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment