History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Mr. Dawkins, check out WHEE to grasp your obstinate confusion and fallacious reasoning on random/non-random evolution..enough’s enough, this has gone on too long

March 26th, 2016 · No Comments


The model of history in WHEE is very strange at first, but only because the data set is very large and not always familiar. But the so-called ‘macro effect’ clearly shows the difference of random and non-random evolution.
The application to history is confusing for many, but the argument without genetics is actually useful.

Random evolution means just that: random processes construct order. But they don’t, and can’t and the odds against it are colossal. The simple point was made by Hoyle decades ago. Dawkins’ sophistries have not resolved the issue.

In the model in WHEE we see that world history, because we can see it at close range (over a period of centuries, after the invention of writing), suddenly shows a non-random pattern, however fragmentary. This is unsettling. But the evidence makes sense at once: we see a discrete-continuous sequencing that drives a mainline (with many complications surrounding this) in a developmental process of civilization that is by definition ‘evolution’. The opposite usage by darwinists has totally corrupted the term. ‘Evolution’ should never be used for random sequences. But we can’t change the usage now, so we should specify non-random evolution as the inevitable logic of real development, i.e. construction of order or complexity. What our historical example shows is the most obvious of realities: ‘evolution’ or development shows a sequence of transitions that operate on two levels, macro and micro, with a source of rapid emergence at their start and a working out thereafter, until the next transition.
Scientists need to bit the bullet here: allowing Dawkins to endlessly promote his distortion has created hopeless confusion.
This suggests the totally obvious point that ‘development’ unfolds with direction or teleology, realizes some kind of ‘telos’ or plan, and uses the random factor to subject created forms to environmental adaptation.

This example therefore shows the most obvious and reasonable example of what we should mean by evolution, but here without the distraction of genetics. We see that some hidden form factor is involved and this is very difficult to specify, although it is clear enough from its result.

This is one version of the original view of Lamarck who got the idea straight before Darwin confused the issue with natural selection fallacies.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment