Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Persuading leftists to forsake the Holy Darwin is a hard sell, but in reality WHEE makes it very easy, and without theological hangups or kidnaps.

February 6th, 2016 · No Comments

Persuading leftists to forsake the Holy Darwin is a hard sell, but in reality WHEE makes it very easy, and without theological hangups or kidnaps.
1. the left should try on the evolution question to stay within the realm of science/materialism….OK…
2. Darwinism is unscientific: its theory of natural selection is hocus pocus, as pointed out over and over by those who understand statistics, therefore the left should be wary of darwinism…but the paradigm is heavily protected by science/biology/academia which never answers critics, never allows critics any established space, and indulges in outright deceptions when confronted by religious critics…

3. Darwinism is an ideology in some fashion, and many mainstream scientists can’t dissent on the question, or are confused/conformist/or afraid…
4. the ideology stretches into social darwinism, but this tends to be shunted to Spencer, not Darwin, or his theory
5. that natural selection is the source of social darwinism can be seen from the logic of survival of the fittest, its resemblance to class warfare, and its suggestion lower classes can’t pass the test…class warfare emerges in the absurd claims the rich classes are survivors of competition and/or that economic competition will produce fitter survivors…
6. natural selection is about random evolution, which is very implausible: the question is, can we find an example of non-random evolution (at close range)?
7. the record in ‘deep time’ is confusing because ‘rapid change’ (i.e. the generator of non-random evolution) is mostly lost to the record which shows random patterning over the long record, the record of the non-random being invisible at short range
8. Evolution is distinguished from ‘development’ but this is a confusion: evolution should be related to ‘development’ which shows progression/growth according to a format, plan, or teleology/blueprint. Are there any cases of development that can help here? Dozens, but one of the best is the pattern of development we see in world history
9. this pattern shows with a vengeance how rapid evolution in deep time could be invisible: world history shows developmental bursts at the range of three centuries (in a ratio to millennia)! The analogous intervals in the slightly different case of deep time is unknown, but the Cambrian probably gives us one relevant scale (we don’t know at what interval rapid changes become invisible, i.e. the birth of multiple body-plan configurations). That the developmental sequence of the Cambrian (highly complex, and still misunderstood) is the result of random natural selection is highly dubious as a claim and clearly suggests instead a very complicated developmental sequence or sequences…with natural selection winnowing out the diverse potentials…
10. the developmental pattern in world history is only visible where we have records at the level of centuries, i.e. since the invention of writing…even the Neolithic falls out of range (although once we know what to look for we can probably decipher this period): that give us data since the invention of writing in the onset of dynastic Egypt and Sumer (ca. 3000 BCE). The data we have suggests strongly a system operating in a frequency of 2400 years: each cycles shows progressed approximation to a generalized set of results: i.e. developing civilization
11. despite the complexity this result is very natural: development shows the action of a driving process and this produces relative transforms (semantically similar to punctuations as in ‘punctuated equilibrium’) that then develop into civilizations at a given stage, e.g. post Sumerian, post-Axial, post-early modern civilizational types…
12. this example is able to show us non-genetic development that is non-random at the level of culture, with a hidden form factor that is clear to some degree from its results…
13. we end suspicious that real evolution is non-random, operates via rapid transitions that then stabilize over time, that these transitions are not visible in the records we have, that we only have data for the (relatively) stabilized intervals, and these mislead us into false theories…
14. the example from history is not another ‘theory’, the latter being highly ‘risky’ attempts at science with oversimplifications. Instead we follow empirical chronologies with ‘evolution’ as a descriptive category.
15. In all cases, biologists, despite what they say in public about natural selection, follow the procedure in #item 14: they discuss empirical chronologies of life forms, species, and organisms, in histories of life, in a way that requires no theory, and which goes haywire the moment they invoke the theory of natural selection…
16. religious critics, on the sideline teeheeing the spectacle of monumental idiocy visible in such a crowd of scientists then turn and use design arguments to promote theological arguments. But these constitute another ‘theory’ and go haywire almost immediately. It makes little sense, and there is not proof, that ‘god’ is behind evolution. But this does not rule out ‘design’ arguments. If natural selection fails, then some form of ‘design’ is probably at work, but this implies nothing theological. ‘Design’ is clearly evident in all aspects of biochemical transformation in the form of complex sequences of development, biochemical combinations of great complexity, and in the developmental sequences of evolution itself. This ‘design’ is problematical because the forms of Newtonian science don’t work: they have a teleological aspect that was banished from science, although thinkers like Kant tried to reconcile the confusions, in vain, so far….Kant’s innovations appeared at the dawn of modern biology, but disappeared early in the development of the later pseudo-science…
17. It is almost impossible for professional biologists to grasp this situation, and the rescue team has to proceed from the outside…
This critique can be adopted easily by the left without making any specific statements outside of science (which has no science of evolution in any case): it can simply be a set of statements about the difference between random and non-random evolution/development…, empirical observations of relevant cases, and a refusal to rule out non-random development in deep time …

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment