History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: historians and scientists would dismiss the eonic effect and then lie through their teeth about darwinism, etc…

May 14th, 2017 · No Comments


People have a hard time with the ‘eonic effect’ and its model but then turn around and promote outright deceptions in the fields of evolution and history. This is true of scientists, of theologians, of marxists, of almost the whole of historiography.

There is no doubt that the ‘eonic effect’ is tricky, at first, but its method is so simple and transparent and the successes of correlation as a result so cogent that the method promotes this kind of analysis to the front burner. Demonstrating a non-random pattern by this method is close to overwhelming and it comes with a warning for marxists: a revolutionary transformation based on a false analysis of history will derail. A much better approach it to avoid theories and consider a general outline like that of the eonic effect, taken minimally. And the model is a warning that while it is true that ‘man makes himself’ he gets a lot of help from a mysterious process in the background.
The situation defaults to seeing ‘meaning’ in the way the pieces fall together: a puzzle can be solved in a local area without all the pieces…
Best to take the warning and redo the left’s historical model. A colossal mess like bolshevism can result from fragmentary sociological muddle. In a way as Popper noted the liberal world did better, at first, because it didn’t operate on theories of history (short of Fukuyama propaganda): it did things as constitutional frameworks. The left should do the same.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment