History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Funs and games in the evolution sandbox…why are ‘evolutionary theories’ doomed to failure?

January 31st, 2018 · No Comments


The question of evolutionary theory remains unsolved by science: I often recommend a study of the eonic effect to see why the question remains so intractable. As an exercise it is useful to try and do ‘evolution’ without genetics! Something very abstract, almost ‘noumenal’ in a Kantian sense, is preventing the formulation of a comprehensive theory. The debate over design reflects this. It is impossible to banish ‘design’ from evolutionary thinking, but it doesn’t follow that this is about ‘god’ or religious issues. Probably what is missing is a model of teleological processes. In the end, in a clear reflection of fine-tuning, or the equivalent, we must derive ‘evolution’ from an overall cosmological model demonstrating how life emerges at all.
The eonic model says nothing directly about ‘evolution’ in deep time, but because it studies the overlap of evolution becoming history it is highly likely it will reflect at least something on the question of animals becoming primates becoming man, with man evolving not just as an organism but as an organism in a cultural context or environment. The question is stunningly complex and I fear science isn’t even close.
I think the eonic model IS close but it has a ‘noumenal cut off’ level that shows what is happening on the surface without finding the deeper teleological ‘mechanism’ which is invisible to the naked eye.
This perspective is unacceptable to scientists, perhaps even to critics of darwinism, and the result is the permanent floundering in reductionist fallacies…

However, like the contrast of machine language and high level programming the former must reflect the latter, which is invisible to us. But slow but steady research at the ‘machine code’ level, i.e. genetics/biochemistry, might uncover a mirror image or some reflection of the higher level. After all machine code, however obscure, must reflect the higher level however confusing its reifications…
(This analogy may be flawed)

To cite the eonic model once again, consider what seems to be happening: a kind of abstract punctuated equilibrium ( a dangerous term coopted by selectionists) drives a form factor of immense complexity over global regions. Note that, regions. Not just changes in organisms, but configurations over tens of millennia of cultural regions The earlier aspect of that must have existed in earlier stages, although we can’t easily find the details. To see this, note the obvious fact that a ‘species’ is more than an organism, it is a collection of organisms over a region. And I fear that the notion of some mutation spreading over a region is mystical darwinism at work. Some ‘field’ effect must be meta-genetic, and that is, well, a ‘who knows’.
Best of luck with your theory of evolution. It might help to acknowledge ignorance and accept a kind of evolutionary semi-agnosticism. Otherwise we are confronted by a scientific popery trying to enforce a view of man destined to error.

To get a sense of the scale, complexity, ‘designishness’ of ‘eonic evolution’ consider the Greek Archaic: a set of sudden innovations over a region across three or so centuries! Not only is this a computational scale of almost inconceivable proportions it also at a very high level that must ‘compute’ complex higher functions, art, philosophy, religion, politics, etc…There might be a way to preempt design arguments by arguing that some ‘master creative energy’ induces creativity over a region, but in the end issues relating to mechanism and aesthetics in interaction emerge to haunt any and all attempts at theory. The only work that I know of that even touches this mystery is Kant’s Critique of Teleological Judgment.
Archaic Greece: the Clue

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment