08.27.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 9:09 pm by nemo
Wallace was able finally to face the reality that ‘Darwinism’ couldn’t explain man. We may not agree with his formulation, but the point is that scientist can’t explain a ‘human’ it doesn’t even ’see’.
A short selection from World History And The Eonic
Wallace’s Second Opinion
One of the strangest aspects of the emergence of Darwinism is the sudden appearance of Alfred Wallace on the scene, triggering the publication of Darwin’s Origin. The long delay in Darwin’s work here has always been something of a mystery, as if he remained unsure of the basis of his claims. And the odd story of the rigged priority episode upon receipt of the famous Ternate letter leaves still another ambiguity at the threshold of Darwinism. Any evaluation of Darwin and his theory should consider the motives of personal ambition at the onset. And any testimony to evolution should consider Wallace’s ‘second opinion’ on the subject of evolution.
Wallace’s Second Opinion Wallace could see no way to make the theory work after the fashion of Darwin and considered a broader alternative, his ‘Theory of Human Nature’:
1. Man is a duality, consisting of an organized spiritual form, evolved coincidently and permeating the physical body, and having corresponding organs and development.
2. Death is the separation of this duality, and effects no change in the spirit, morally or intellectually.
3. Progressive evolution of the intellectual and moral nature is the destiny of individuals; the knowledge, attainments, and experience of earth-life forming the basis of spirit-life.
Accept this or not, we should still consider that the first scientist to make public a theory of evolution took such views. Wallace is notorious for his later interest in spiritualism, in the tide of interest in the question, that is also evident in the work of Henry James. The attempts to proceed scientifically in this area seem ludicrous to us now, and yet the question will not die in so far as Darwinian thinking cannot produce a viable definition of the organism, certainly not of man. Is the organismic totality a purely space-time entity? Even such a simple question eludes easy answer. It founders at the limits of metaphysics.
Just So (Ghost) Stories It is ironic that the onset of one of the greatest critiques of metaphysics began with Kant’s Visions of A Ghostseer, sounding the caution that questions divinity, soul, and free will would prove intractable to scientific analysis. Darwinism gets itself in trouble on all three of these classic issues. We might smile at Wallace the table-rapper, but sound science can provide no proof against the reality of ghosts, a dismal circumstance. At least we can be sure that if such exist, Darwinism is falsified on the spot, the difficulty of ghostly forms adapting to their environment by natural selection being evident.
Wallace is an important, but neglected, figure in the emergence of evolutionary theory, and his views, whatever our perspective, are not refuted by anything in the spurious abuse of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Let us note, then, that one of the co-discoverers of selectionist theory later dissented on the question, as far as the descent of man is concerned. Wallace (who started as a super-selectionist) saw something that becomes obvious in light of the eonic effect, that is, the appearance not of adaptive traits, but of potential that emerges through self-realization (making the term ‘evolution’ ambiguous). His classic observation was that
…in creating the human brain, evolution has wildly overshot the mark.
An instrument has been developed in advance of the needs of its possessor…Natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of the ape, whereas he possesses one very little inferior to that of the average member of our learned societies….
This sentiment springs to life once we see the way Wallace’s dilemma reflects on history. We are confronted with questions about the meaning of evolution, if history shows yogis exploring consciousness in traditions as old as the emergence of civilization. It is entirely possible man came into being as he is in times unseen in the Paleolithic, and that what we sense as ‘evolution’ is another process entirely, a kind of self-realization of potential. It is still evolution in our sense.
![[Slashdot]](http://slashdot.org/favicon.ico)
![[Digg]](http://digg.com/favicon.ico)
![[Reddit]](http://reddit.com/favicon.ico)
![[del.icio.us]](http://del.icio.us/favicon.ico)
![[Facebook]](http://www.facebook.com/favicon.ico)
![[Technorati]](http://technorati.com/favicon.ico)
![[Google]](http://www.google.com/favicon.ico)
Permalink
08.26.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 5:01 pm by nemo
In response to the question about history and evolution, here is a passage from World History And The Eonic Effect
The issue of history and evolution is a confusing one, and it seems as if we are making a category error. But consider the following question: when did evolution stop and history begin? This tricky question will trip up the Darwinian approach and leave it to collapse in a contradiction. The answer of course is that there couldn’t be an instantaneous switch. We can see that to set a specific date is contradictory. So we must specify a transition between evolution and history. What form would this hybrid take, passing from evolution to history? Either it is all evolution or all history?? Or maybe a series of mini-transitions with evolution dominant then history dominant. In alternation. Now look at the eonic effect: it speaks not just of evolution, but of history and evolution, the two braided together, with history emerging from evolution. And this eonic effect takes the form of a sequence of alternating periods, with evolution (in our sense) dominant during eras of transition, and co-related periods with history (in our sense) dominant. Thus we actually see in history the data matching the deduction about transitions, passing from evolution to history.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
08.25.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 7:53 pm by nemo
From
World History And The Eonic Effect
Historical research has greatly expanded our knowledge of world history, and the result is an unexpected discovery: that of a process of universal history in the action of a mysterious dynamic generating a non-random pattern. We call this the eonic effect. Further, the scale of this process is such that we can only call it ‘evolution’. Thus, for the first time we can detect the unmistakable evidence of non-random evolution, and this in world history itself. This leaves us with the question, What is evolution? And this forces another, long overdue, What is the relationship between history and evolution? This could be recast as the paradoxical question, When did evolution stop and history begin?
A moment’s reflection will tell us that no instantaneous passage between the two is plausible and that our terms have been left ragged. We must, by this logic, be able to detect a Transition between evolution and history. Can we find evidence to match this deduction? Indeed, we can, our non-random pattern, the eonic effect. In fact we can say more: if we apply that same logic to our Transition we should expect it to take the form of a series of transitions in an alternation between evolution and history, as if overlayed, the one emerging from the other. The eonic effect shows just this property of transitions in a series. Have we reached the end of the Great Transition? If not, then our evolution still constitutes our present and future. We should ask who man is, with such wisdom as would constitute achievement of the title, homo sapiens.
Our thinking is conditioned by Darwinism, which throws ‘evolution’ into the past, with a tacit set of assumptions about random evolution. The result is an enforced incoherence. This is often matched with a prejudice against any consideration of a science of history in the large, and/or any attempt using the philosophy of history to seek historical meaning. A further critique of the idea of universal history comes from the postmodern rejection of the Grand Narrative.
In this context the status of a science of history is ambiguous, as the philosopher Karl Popper in his critique of historicism insisted, with his rejection of the idea that history has meaning. Yet as the labors of archaeological research proceed a falsification of this perspective emerges. Karl Popper was wrong: history has meaning, and we can discover large-scale coherence in its unfolding. It is hard to break the habit of thinking universal histories have all been discredited. Suddenly we see the existence of a world system, but this requires looking beyond individual civilizations to the whole phenomenon of Civilization since the Neolithic.
As we proceed in search of history we will discover an irony, which is that we will find evolution in history, and then history in evolution, and this will give us an insight into the descent of man. We must move beyond the myth of purely genetic evolution, and the fixation on natural selection. We can recalibrate our definition of ‘evolution’ to include man’s past, present, and future, with a new kind of model that can carefully define the nature of our evolving freedom.
The evolution of man is, and remains, a complete mystery. There is something almost mythological in the projection of Darwinian scenarios of natural selection onto the Paleolithic. Such evidence as we have is mostly that of skeletal remains, highly incomplete, of a series of hominids stretched over millions of years. Dogmatism in such a situation takes on an almost religious character in Darwinists. In the midst of this void of hard information we are to believe that all the complex functions of the human advance are to be ascribed to processes of natural selection and adaptation. Such claims, pressed into service for metaphysical conclusions, are weak in their evidentiary basis. In contradiction to this, flagrantly out in the open, is the evidence of a Great Explosion in the period around 50,000 B.C. As if crossing a threshold homo sapiens suddenly begins to leave traces of all the forms of higher culture that are characteristic of man as we find him in history. The suddenness and depth of this rapid passage, if we can trust the data, call out for explanation beyond the standard and very vague claims of mysterious mutations. This is really a question of what we mean by ‘macroevolution’, as opposed to ‘microevolution’. Is not Darwin’s theory really one of microevolution? The problem is that observing anything that resembles macroevolution demands a very detailed record of evolutionary sequences, and this invokes a crisis of correct observation.
Permalink
08.24.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 3:18 pm by nemo
A selection from: World History And The Eonic Effect
The Legacy Of Darwinism
At a time when theories of evolution are under renewed controversy, discussion is hampered by the remoteness of the phenomenon of evolution, and the use of indirect inference to speculate about deep time. In the face of much criticism from religious Creationists, now accompanied by the Intelligent Design movement, adherents of Darwinism forever defend a flawed theory that has been challenged from its first appearance. The objections of the first reviewers of Darwin’s book, indeed even of T. H. Huxley, the original champion of the theory, were never quite answered in the tide of paradigm change that swept modern culture. The perennial issue is natural selection as the mechanism of evolution. The assumption that evolution occurs, and must occur, at random is the crux of the dispute, one unreasonably confused by the claims of religion versus science.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
08.23.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 7:10 pm by nemo
A selection from World History And The Eonic Effect:
Zarathustra And The Old Testament Enigma
As we enter on the artificially created moment of the new Millennium set by the Christian calendar, an observer skeptical of the eschatological visions of doomsday apocalyptics might yet consider that mankind is passing through a crisis in human history as a whole, the end of a long beginning since the passing of the last Ice Age. Globalization and economic interpenetration, the onrush of technology, political cyclone, ecological and demographic alarm, coexist with futurist expectation, and the hopes of temporal salvation rendered over to providential certainties. Ideas of progress and decline seem finally to blend in the antique hope of ‘end-time’ redemption, to pass as the ultimate ‘quick fix’ uttered in slogans. Some see the end of the ‘modern age’, and in a postmodernist mood, survey twentieth century as the close of an era. At least, the expectation of millennial completion seems a desperate impatience in a vault of centuries and a progression of epochs barely underway, barely able to begin. The nature of futurist beliefs, themselves the source of endless confusion, generate historical misperception in the traffic between archetypal ‘crisis’ and the console red-warning lights of real issues.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
08.20.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 7:11 pm by nemo
One of the most confused strains in current biological thinking, Darwinism, is the assertion by Richard Dawkins that natural selection is able to climb Mt. Improbable.
A look at the eonic effect shows how the real climbing is done in one form of ‘evolution’. An eye opener.
Selection from World History And The Eonic Effect
1.4.2 Random Evolution: Climbing Mount Improbable?
One of the most confused claims made by Darwinists concerns the randomness of evolution by natural selection. It is obvious that Darwin’s theory is about evolution by accident, but since the improbability of this begins to demand some account we are given a revision in the works of Richard Dawkins where it is said that while mutation is random, natural selection is non-random. This odd way of restating Darwinian assumptions about chance is a suspiciously convenient change in the original meaning of the terms used, and seems little more than a rhetorical finesse designed to throw critics off guard. As Dawkins notes in Climbing Mount Improbable, “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn’t work. You don’t need to be a mathematician or physicist to that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck.” But it is quite as obvious that Darwin’s theory is one of chance, so we are done.
Non-random evolution We should consider that ‘non-random evolution’ means, although not exclusively and open to further definition, and requiring an exemplar instance, a driving process, associated with a force or determinate principle of sufficient reason, operating, perhaps like a feedback or other device, externally, and possibly acting to transcend continuity in space and time (geographically or in discontinuous succession). Redefinition as an internal or immanent process is also possible, but invokes something unknown and unintuitive. References to ‘macroevolution’ often invoke a variant of this thinking.
Dawkins proposes that the problem is resolved by the accumulation of small steps, then bets his argument on a completely incorrect analogy to computer programming. Again, as Hoyle observes, chance wouldn’t even get a single polypeptide straight, and nothing in genetic programming has ever solved this problem. Beyond the hype, it would cause a feeding frenzy in the stock market if any computer program was found to do what is claimed. It would revolutionize industry. We would certainly know that this was the case! Instead we see a sheepishly heuristic wishfulfilment at work in the Darwinian mythological fantasy world.
The simple fact is that Darwinism really is a theory about chance! Dawkins proposes to embrace the theory’s fatal flaw by changing the terms of discussion. The term ‘random’ has changed its meaning. The problem is that while natural selection might be non-random in the sense of its equivalence to the process of adaptation, it is still random in the sense that there are no macroevolutionary or directional processes over and above the incidents of random mutation and, yes, random, directionless, natural selection. Detecting a teleological process behind evolution would immediately force us to reconsider the whole question. The problem is that teleology is an abstraction. We need to observe, or attempt to detect, the representation of teleology in nature. But the very examples claimed, incremental small changes, might show a directional representation of teleology.
Permalink
08.19.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 6:45 pm by nemo
A selection from World History And The Eonic Effect: Amazon ready
The Limits of Observation
The debate over natural selection has gone on too long. Darwinists should have long since confessed the metaphysical speculation and methodological abuse of right science latent in Darwin’s theory. We need to be finished with the matter by demanding proper proof. It is an issue of science, not religion. Where did Darwin go wrong?
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
08.16.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 7:24 pm by nemo
One of the indirect falsifications of Darwinism lies in the way it flunks a photo finish test. The result we see in history does not correspond to the result expected from Darwinian explanation.
A selection from World History And The Eonic Effect, Third Edition.
2.3.1 A Photo Finish Test
We can restate this as a photo finish argument, falsifying Darwinism. The problem is that ‘history’ and ‘evolution’ overlap, so our account is moving towards a photo finish contradiction. We are beginning to see something totally different from what Darwinists propose. Nor is it likely that earlier human emergence could be something completely different from this. The eonic effect shows us direct examples of the evolution of social units, religions, cultural entities, at a high level, in a non-genetic macroevolution. The core nature of man and his culture springs from the very period Darwinists assume for their account. Are we to suppose without proof this was purely genetic? The brief photo finish of human evolution since the beginning of civilization is thus beginning to suggest a surprising set of facts.
Darwinism fails a reality check, given the eonic effect, and thus flunks a photo finish test. If someone says the racehorse is one color, and the photo finish shows another, the original claim comes under suspicion. If the claim is made that cultural and biological evolution are distinct, we can construct (below) an evolution of freedom argument demanding an overlap of some unified homogenous evolution. Over and over people have suspected something is missing in Darwin’s theory. We sense immediately that we have found it, and in our own history. The search for a ‘something’ that might ‘cause evolution’ against the random suddenly becomes visible in our own history, seen in the very pattern of human activity taken over the long term. We see conclusive evidence of a global aspect to evolution.
Permalink
08.14.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 5:11 pm by nemo
Falsifying Darwinism: A Theoretical Self-defense
Selection from third edition: World History And The Eonic Effect
In the relentless promotion of violent evolutionary theories as ideology and the equal and opposite exploitation of the ambiguities of such theories in the resurrection of design arguments, the public is lost in a closed dialectic. We need a method of theoretical self-defense to achieve a basic sanity in a debate seeding another phase of the wars of religion. However, those religions tend naturally via their sense of universal history to choke on the extreme reductionism of Darwinian explanation. Confronted with a hopelessly botched theory that has genocidal implications, it is of great importance to see that evolution Darwin-style is simply not the case, and not confirmed by the evidence. We can at least quarantine world history from the misapplication of Darwin’s theory.
We need a more up to date approach to the idea of universal history. Study of the eonic effect provides this empirically and can act as equalizer to help us to put the whole debate in perspective, to see that our public discourse is condemned to propaganda, and little else. We cannot easily defeat these propagandas serving the agendas of technocratic Big Science and fundamentalist anti-modernism, but we can proceed from the underground, and thence move to replace the obsession with theories with an empirical matrix of historical observation.
The eonic effect shows us how to get out of the theory trap, and proceed with a simple time-line or tracker-approximator of macro-history that can give us the rough sense of our evolutionary context without the oversimplifications used to enforce the worldviews of dominant elites. This can allow us to take into account the fact of evolution without the presumption to theory that condemned Darwinism to a pseudo-science for Whiggish impostors. In the process we can bypass the cut-purse abuse of the design argument in service of theocratic domination. The most we can do is to erect a failsafe that will protect historical action from the Darwinian confusion applied to history, our proper domain of action, with its own evolutionary process, one that can better serve our real potential. We can also wrest the Old Testament from the labyrinth of mythology that has grown around it, and see its real significance in the emergence of civilization. It is time to rescue this text from the hallucinations of religious lunacy. In the process we can do better justice to science and religion both, able to recreate the essence of religion in the context of a robust secularism, beyond the derelicts of Axial Age destined break up on the shoals of modernity, and beyond the feeble idiocies of degenerating scientism.
Armed with the data of the eonic effect you can stop Darwinian claims for the science of natural selection in their tracks, without getting entangled in religious or design arguments. The associated eonic model can help in seeing the problems with current evolutionary theories and their misapplication to history and culture.
Permalink
08.12.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 4:12 pm by nemo
From yesterday:
This is from the third edition to World History And The Eonic Effect:
It is world history itself that shows us the clue to evolution. Darwinists, by distracting attention to times unseen, have confused us completely. We are ready to examine the phenomenon of the eonic effect, the evidence of a non-random pattern in world history. And this will uncover evolution behind history, the real meaning of evolution as a macro process, in an extended sense that is more than genetic. The one thing Darwinists don’t want to find is such a non-random pattern, anywhere. The data for seeing such a pattern has reached critical mass only in our own times, and can be highlighted by simple inspection using careful periodization. The conclusion is inescapable: this structure demonstrates the existence of an evolutionary driver operating where least expected.
Darwinists claim that evolution is random, and that this applies to history also. Has anyone bothered to check the data? Against this, we discover, since the invention of writing, a rich patterning, a definite derandomized structure. So Darwinized thinking is wrong about history. That’s that. The eonic effect is a warning that the whole project of selectionist theory fails with history.
From World History And The Eonic Effect
Permalink
08.10.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect, History at 5:45 pm by nemo
Selection for WH&EE
Our thinking is conditioned by Darwinism, which throws ‘evolution’ into the past, with a tacit set of assumptions about random evolution. The result is an enforced incoherence. This is often matched with a prejudice against any consideration of a science of history in the large, and/or any attempt using the philosophy of history to seek historical meaning. A further critique of the idea of universal history comes from the postmodern rejection of the Grand Narrative.
In this context the status of a science of history is ambiguous, as the philosopher Karl Popper in his critique of historicism insisted, with his rejection of the idea that history has meaning. Yet as the labors of archaeological research proceed a falsification of this perspective emerges. Karl Popper was wrong: history has meaning, and we can discover large-scale coherence in its unfolding. It is hard to break the habit of thinking universal histories have all been discredited. Suddenly we see the existence of a world system, but this requires looking beyond individual civilizations to the whole phenomenon of Civilization since the Neolithic.
As we proceed in search of history we will discover an irony, which is that we will find evolution in history, and then history in evolution, and this will give us an insight into the descent of man. We must move beyond the myth of purely genetic evolution, and the fixation on natural selection. We can recalibrate our definition of ‘evolution’ to include man’s past, present, and future, with a new kind of model that can carefully define the nature of our evolving freedom.
The evolution of man is, and remains, a complete mystery. There is something almost mythological in the projection of Darwinian scenarios of natural selection onto the Paleolithic. Such evidence as we have is mostly that of skeletal remains, highly incomplete, of a series of hominids stretched over millions of years. Dogmatism in such a situation takes on an almost religious character in Darwinists. In the midst of this void of hard information we are to believe that all the complex functions of the human advance are to be ascribed to processes of natural selection and adaptation. Such claims, pressed into service for metaphysical conclusions, are weak in their evidentiary basis. In contradiction to this, flagrantly out in the open, is the evidence of a Great Explosion in the period around 50,000 B.C. As if crossing a threshold homo sapiens suddenly begins to leave traces of all the forms of higher culture that are characteristic of man as we find him in history. The suddenness and depth of this rapid passage, if we can trust the data, call out for explanation beyond the standard and very vague claims of mysterious mutations. This is really a question of what we mean by ‘macroevolution’, as opposed to ‘microevolution’. Is not Darwin’s theory really one of microevolution? The problem is that observing anything that resembles macroevolution demands a very detailed record of evolutionary sequences, and this invokes a crisis of correct observation.
We are ready to take a look at the evidence for non-random evolution in history itself, mindful of the distinctions we think we should or should not make between cultural and biological evolution. There is an irony to our views of evolution. We look to deep time to find the answers to our quest to understand evolution, and yet we have very little data to conclude anything. We then apply that thinking to history, and yet here we have what is really a far more detailed record, seen at close range. We fail to suspect the fallacy here, or that history itself shows the direct evidence of evolution.
Permalink
08.09.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 8:16 pm by nemo
World History And The Eonic Effect
Historical research has greatly expanded our knowledge of world history, and the result is an unexpected discovery: that of a process of universal history in the action of a mysterious dynamic generating a non-random pattern. We call this the eonic effect. Further, the scale of this process is such that we can only call it ‘evolution’. Thus, for the first time we can detect the unmistakable evidence of non-random evolution, and this in world history itself. This leaves us with the question, What is evolution? And this forces another, long overdue, What is the relationship between history and evolution? This could be recast as the paradoxical question, When did evolution stop and history begin?
A moment’s reflection will tell us that no instantaneous passage between the two is plausible and that our terms have been left ragged. We must, by this logic, be able to detect a Transition between evolution and history. Can we find evidence to match this deduction? Indeed, we can, our non-random pattern, the eonic effect. In fact we can say more: if we apply that same logic to our Transition we should expect it to take the form of a series of transitions in an alternation between evolution and history, as if overlayed, the one emerging from the other. The eonic effect shows just this property of transitions in a series. Have we reached the end of the Great Transition? If not, then our evolution still constitutes our present and future. We should ask who man is, with such wisdom as would constitute achievement of the title, homo sapiens.
Permalink
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 5:50 pm by nemo
This is a short selection form:
World History And The Eonic Effect
1.4.1 The Limits of Observation
The debate over natural selection has gone on too long. Darwinists should have long since confessed the metaphysical speculation and methodological abuse of right science latent in Darwin’s theory. We need to be finished with the matter by demanding proper proof. It is an issue of science, not religion. Where did Darwin go wrong? Darwin’s theory is a provocative generalization applied to immense vistas of time that are unobserved. Those unobserved intervals in deep time can fool us badly. We can exit the chronic debate by simply demanding proper evidence. The demand for evidence of the fact of evolution is far less stringent than that for natural selection. Demonstration that the latter is the key to all forms of higher complex structure has never been demonstrated scientifically. The task is exceedingly difficult, for starters. The difficulty may preempt easy hopes for a theory of evolution. One way to see the problem with claims for natural selection is to look at history, and we will proceed to an examination of non-random evolution in the dynamics of historical emergence.
The hurricane argument Consider a hurricane, a very brief event by comparison, as a global ‘system evolution’ on the surface of a planet. We know a hurricane when we see one, but its dynamics, mechanism, and full progression require incremental ‘closing’ on degrees of evidence and observation, a task not fully accomplished until the advent of satellites able to map global coordinates. In the same way we know evolution when we see it, roughly speaking, given the fossil evidence, but its dynamics, mechanism and full progression require incremental ‘closing’ on degrees of evidence and observation, a task not fully accomplished. Note the analogy suggests global positioning satellites over the entire planet over millions of years, to observe drifting species and their changes. Suppose an observer in outer space only had loosely sampled data on pre-Neolithic man, and post-twentieth century man, and then conjectured that some mutation caused this dramatic change.
This analogy shows at once where Darwinism departs from scientific practice. Historians routinely assume they must close on the facts in such an analysis, yet Darwinists wish to claim exemption. We have no fully observed datasets in Darwinian deep time. It is an insidious trap.
In all the noise of the Darwin debate, this judgment is final, and it is important therefore to grasp that no one is under any evidentiary obligation to take Darwinian selectionism as established scientifically, surprising as some may find that. We put it that way because we can’t refute Darwinists in their provocative claims that routinely ignore the basic objection. The question is very simple: were there any witnesses to the facts claimed? No. We are done. If we find evidence of ‘evolution’ in history, Darwinian claims are void as counterevidence.
Permalink
08.05.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect at 6:39 pm by nemo
Reason: Everyone else is confused, brainwashed, or, more probably, aware of what happens if you dissent in public on evolution.
WHEE is the only book on evolution that does not serve any of the agendas of the Science/Darwin, ID, or book publishing establishments.
Most writers have to adapt their message to these establishments to get published, make any money, etc,…
Conclusion: you need a perspective completely outside of these ‘censorship’ routines.
Once free from these constraints it is not so hard to figure out what’s what with evolution.
From the Preface:
World History And The Eonic Effect
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
08.04.08
Posted in Third Edition, rss, World History and The Eonic Effect, Booknotes at 7:03 pm by nemo
World History, Third Edition, Discounted
At a time when theories of evolution are undergoing renewed controversy, discussion is hampered by the remoteness of the phenomenon of evolution, and the use of indirect inference to speculate about natural selection in processes that have never been observed. In the face of much criticism from religious Creationists, adherents of Darwinism often defend textbook versions of the theory that have, in any case, often been held in question. The assumption that evolution occurs, and must occur, at random is the crux of the dispute, and one unreasonably confused with issues of religion and secularization.
This study of the so-called Eonic Effect can break the deadlock by demonstrating a nonrandom pattern in visible world history as ‘evolution’.
The counterevidence to Darwinian thinking in the form of a non-genetic macroevolution can assist in debriefing the confusion created by Darwinian myths about the Descent of Man.
Permalink
08.03.08
Posted in Third Edition, World History and The Eonic Effect, Evolution at 6:00 pm by nemo
Here is the second selection, after The Oedipus Paradox, in the previous post
\\From World History & The Eonic Effect
1.2.4 Botched Theories And The Coefficient of Murder
Let us look at this implication of the Oedipus paradox, and consider the
ethics involved in the assertion of evolutionary, and indeed, ethical theories,
seen in a definable ‘coefficient of murder’ associated with the theory. The
option to ‘act according to the law of evolution’, survival of the fittest,
natural selection (death of the competitor) informs the agent, who proceeds to
violent means, sure in his rejection of ethics of the grounding in science
of biological law. Unscrupulous warmongers are handed a gift of legitimation
by Darwin’s shortsighted theory. To inject the theory of natural selection
into the culture of his time without any specification of the domains of its
application was the source of the hopeless confusion that arose in Darwin’s
wake, leading to the entanglements of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer is
partly to blame here, but he never proposed the facts of social competition as a
universal explanation for evolution. Read the rest of this entry »