History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Pointing to the non-random without a theory…

January 18th, 2016 · No Comments


Changing paradigms is brave talk, but the result is likely to be a problem all over again, although relief from frozen darwinism will be a boon in itself.
But there is something wrong with the way ‘paradigms’ are taken in science, in biology, at least.
And that suggests what was obvious to some already in the eighteenth century: biology needs an extended definition of science. Kant was clear on the point, and founded a school of biologists, now forgotten (or unmentionable).

WHEE offers a way of looking at this issue without getting entangled in speculative theories: it purports to look at ‘evolution’ over an interval at close range, in history. The results are instructive because they suggest that what is wrong in current theories is the inability to deal with ‘directionality’. The latter introduces a considerable new complexity and moves into uncharted terrain.

This approach is useful for the left: it needs to challenge darwinism without getting into a quagmire. The model shown allows one to simply point to the issue of the non-random without having to produce a full theory of the matter.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment