Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

WHEE more useful than Wright’s junky discussion but I would be afraid if he ever read it…

December 14th, 2016 · No Comments

It seems that everything Wright discusses threatens to become junk thinking. Unfair? I speak in self-defense as to the dangers of ever agreeing with him, especially on evolution. In fact Wright touches on a number of interesting points, but I must be utterly wary because ‘garbled god talk’ will undo my take on the subject. In any case his confusion over darwinism makes his thinking incoherent…
In fact…
I think evolution is teleological, has a relationship to history, and that bringing the ‘god’ concept into the discussion will destroy clarity. That is a reference to the term ‘god’, since the ‘god concept’ could certainly be reinvented using new language. I doubt that the teleological is any proof of ‘god’, but how can we know?

We can retreat to a more general claim of directionality, since the teleological might be trans-temporal or the noumenal aspect of the phenomenon of evolution.
World History and the Eonic Effect (history-and-evolution.com) might have helped Wright in his thinking, but I would be terrified if such a person took up the material and dosed it with his typical confusions…

The claim of teleology has to remain conjecture but the assumptions about natural selection by biologists are so absurd that the teleological, by indirect inference, becomes an almost overwhelming conclusion, being wary of what people will make of that.

I strongly recommend reading my Enigma of the Axial Age: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75650151/XML_DARW_GC_Axial/9780984702947_txt_Enigma_of_the_Axial_Age.pdf
this book goes through the many issues very carefully. It won’t be reviewed at the New York Times.
Coyne’s hopeless confusion over natural selection makes his critique useless.
Pardon me while I escape any more discussion of Wright.

Update: Coyne reviews The Evolution of God: https://newrepublic.com/article/61035/creationism-liberals, a book I haven’t read…
Wright’s discussion of game theory is completely useless, to me at least…
WHEE avoids the discussion of ‘moral progress’: it is a confused discussion. World history so far is too short a time span to conclude anything there: but it shows the injection of moral ideas, which man is free to not follow…Progress in many definitions is clearly visible however even over a short time span. That’s not the same as moral progress.

We will discuss this another time…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment