Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Theories, theories of the evidence, and the rank speculation of darwinian pseudo-theory

November 16th, 2014 · No Comments

http://rs21.org.uk/2014/09/25/behind-capital-review/
The study of WHEE looks like a new theory of history, but in reality it is one stage short of that:
we can provide evidence for a theory or we can stall at a more basic stage and attempt to provide a theory of the evidence.
If we even have it. Darwinism falls into this trap: it has no real evidence, let alone a theory of the evidence, let alone a theory.
The foothills of theory in WHEE therefore are concerned with uncovering a non-random pattern out in the open in world history,
and then proposing a ‘theory of that evidence’, i.e. that there is a cyclical issue involved. We have to leave it at that: the theory
of the evidence suggests a beautiful explanation for the rise of civilization, and more, an insight into the meaning of evolution,
but in the end we see that a full theory is stumped by a theory of the evidence. Darwinism in this context is little more than a speculative
guess. We have no real evidence that natural selection produced the forms we see. It is also a case where there is no theory of the evidence,
because there is no evidence.
To see this, consider world history: the historical record shows evidence of something tantalizing: the Axial Age, with evidence at the level
of centuries, mostly. As we move backwards prior to the invention of writing we see huge sectors of history blank-blank. We are tempted to
propose theories here, but our larger study shows us that this is the pursuit of illusion: we haven’t enough evidence, as the Axial period suggests.
It is the same in the theory of evolution: we have no solid evidence. The theory of punctuated equilibrium is an example of a proposed theory of the
evidence: the evidence shows, it is claimed, sudden rapid speciation followed by a period of rough equilibrium.
We must provide evidence for this theory of evidence before we can propose a theory of evolution. And so on. But we can see that darwinism is simply a stop
gap measure, a version of jumping to conclusions, an unconsciously assumed theory of the evidence being the continuous nature of the fossil record.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment