History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Why darwinian natural selection can never be right. You would think that biologists could get statistics right. They can’t, apparently…time for amateurs to comment on/debunk darwinism …

April 18th, 2018 · No Comments

The issue of darwinian natural selection should have been dismissed at the start: as fred hoyle (see below) noted long ago: it is impossible for the idea to be right. Let’s repeat that: for reasons of statistics, it is impossible for natural selection to be right. Let me repeat, impossible. Period. Instead a brand of scientific dogma, made worse by dawkins has imposed this idea on the whole of science and its public. A puzzle in itself… You would think that biologists could get statistics right. They can’t, apparently…

Further below we cited a view of j.g. bennett: while i don’t accept his views as such they are useful in being actually more complicated than standard science mishmash on evolution and by pointing to the real problem (without solving it). In the process as it proceeds along a new age line it invokes modern physics next to a lot of new age stuff: it can be the placeholder for religious view in the process dismissing creationist confusion. The point is that cosmologists must figure out how life takes its place in scheme of larger cosmic ‘evolution’….


    In the words of S. Kauffman in his At Home in the Universe,

    The existence of spontaneous order is a stunning challenge to our settled ideas in biology since Darwin . Most biologists have believed for over a century that selection is the sole source of order in biology, that selection is the tinkerer that crafts the forms. But if the forms selection chooses among were generated by laws of complexity, then selection has always had a handmaiden. It is not, after all, the sole source of order, and organisms are not just tinkered-together contraptions, but expressions of deeper laws. If all this is true, what a revision of the Darwinian worldview will lie before us! Not we the accidental, but we the expected![ii]

    In general, severe, almost certainly fatal, mathematical challenges have always stood in the way of selectionist assumptions. In a now classic text, Evolution From Space, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe give one version of this objection.

    Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for their survival. This situation is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems prepared to blow the whistle on the theory.[iii]

Bennett and the mystery of evolution
February 8th, 2018 ·
Strange to say, the discovery of a real theory of evolution isn’t going to be easy. Stranger still, the only thinker I know of who came close is J.G.Bennett, although I do not accept his overall framework in The Dramatic Universe, but his distinction of the hyponomic, autonomic, and hypernomic realms of nature lays the groundwork, one suspects, for a new form of physics/cosmology in which life emerges in a kind of dialectical triad of higher and lower ‘nature’. What is that???? Science hasn’t yet really discovered the hypernomic although it would seem to be present as natural organisms evolve consciousness and man his ‘will’. The hypernomic has a conceptual connection with will, but more properly in the the sense of Schopenhauer, full stop. We can’t get any further and stay in the realm of science.
Bennett’s remarkable construct suggests that physics/cosmology must resolve the fine-turning argument and move to a form of a ‘theory of involution’, hopefully far beyond the absolute crud of new age versions of the idea. Involution must be hiding somewhere in ‘inflation theory’ and cosmological evolution must somehow create a something that can clarify the emergence of life. We won’t see involution as a physics concept but fine-tuning arguments are some kind of equivalent, perhaps.
Schopenhauer to clarify the idea of ‘will’ a bit saw the close connection of ‘scientific laws’ to his sense of the term ‘Will’ in nature. Bennett’s set of three realms is withing the scale of material nature and is probably a version of the only way to bypass creationist superstitions…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment