History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Is a science of evolution possible?

February 28th, 2013 · No Comments

Is a science of evolution possible? This provocative question should stand as a warning that the question of evolution probably won’t reduce to the category of science in the usual sense. We should support the project of empirical research, as science, in the exploration of the facts of evolution in deep time, but mindful that the limits of observation and the intersection with the domain of values demands an extended definition of science (such as, indeed, was pioneered by the philosopher Kant.

science of history?
The confusion at the core of Darwinism can be seen indiretly by looking at the inability of science to produce a ‘science’ of history. http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap2_1_4.htm

The study of ‘civilizations’, as with Spengler and Toynbee, is the wrong approach: the Axial Age shows the way that a macro factor moves beyond civilizations


The Axial Age, the taboo for mainstream science
Mainstream science can’t acknowledge the existence of the Axial Age: it would raise too many questions the science establishment doesn’t want the public to know about.

Randomness confusing the idea of evolution

We finished up a long series on WHEE at the link above. Time to start over, and use the term ‘macro effect’ for ‘eonic effect’.
In search of history: we are so used to the idea of ‘evolution’ happening ‘long ago’ that when the idea is applied to history it seems wrong. But keep in mind that Darwinism is completely wrong at all points, leaving the term ‘evolution’ stranded in the ‘randomness’ confusions

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment