History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

We are on our own with human evolution…saying ‘fungoo’ to science arrogance presuming knowledge…biologists can’t even tell the truth, let alone do science

February 18th, 2016 · No Comments


The framework of WHEE (history and evolution.com) adopts a perspective of evolutionary directionality (I am not sure about Denton’s structuralism just yet) and cites ‘fine tuning’ ideas in passing. It is very hard to understand the evolution of hominids into man, however, and after setting aside natural selection, we are left with a set of mysteries so far unsolved: the question of the (man as) homo erectus/sapiens transition remains without the needed facts, while the nature of man, homo sapiens, let alone his evolution is an unknown with a tough assignment: the emergence of language, ethics, mind as a distinct organ, art/creativity, consciousness as an instrument with potential grades, a so-called soul and ‘spiritual so-called’ interactions, isn’t something we can hope to explain with current science. The question of soul can’t even hope to have the right physics, although the answer in principle isn’t all that hard (merely super hard): man’s ‘mental apparatus’ intersects with something beyond ‘space-time’. Since spooky physics is starting to have the same problem, we can expect some answers at some point.

Although this is a super-hard task of evolutionary explanation, one that comes close to ‘throwing up one’s hands’ we can expect an overall developmental aspect at one with the larger sequence of evolutionary forms. That is a ‘design’ argument, but not a creationist one. Design can be primordial, that is, the evolutionary design is part of a larger sequence going back to ???: fine tuning again, etc… But we are probably in a realm where purely genetic evolution is only part of the answer. Let’s face reality. Consider language (with a Chomskian twist, or the like): does anyone seriously hope to explain this without a ‘design’ argument: here design has nothing to do with theology, but refers to the issues of a complex machine, or something beyond a machine in the classic sense (i.e.standard causality)? But we are back to the wall here. We suspect ‘designers’ here, and this is not a ‘god’ reference. We have often taken up the issue of J.G. Bennett and his ‘demiurgic powers’ (entities inside nature, beyond life, with components of ‘consciousness’ and ‘will’).
But before citing such things we must suspect an overall developmental sequence from the onset of life to the emergence of man with his peculiarly hypercomplex ‘self/mind/out-of-time action’. Since the whole sequence might have a phenomenal/noumenal aspect the ‘out of time’ aspect has an explanation step one, ‘in principle’. The interaction with ‘spiritual powers’ would thus be unnecessary, but might still occur.
Here the study of the ‘eonic effect’ cited from WHEE is helpful because it confiscates the crutch of genetics and forces thought to think in terms of ‘evolution in the abstract’ as an unfolding kind of developmental software. Where is this located and how does it work? Looking at the eonic/macro effect we can see we are out of luck: the developmental sequence in world history is clear enough, but its fundamental substrate is unknown. We have made progress to the point of seeing that it exists, so that is a start.

But this pattern of developmental ‘software’ in action over the biospheric field is a strong challenge to conventional biological explanation which is fine as it is as far as it goes.

In any case, we are under no obligation to submit to deceptive propaganda enforced as science here. Science holds less than a deuce on human evolution. We can at least see that it is an ‘evolutionary’ question, but that the term ‘evolution’ is not necessarily genetic any more….

Step one for science: learning how to tell the truth…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment