As you read this watch your brain shut down as the reigning paradigm asserts control, assuming you are a ‘darwinist’…You never think about ‘evolution’, you just believe what biologists tell you, little suspicious they are complete idiots here.
Biologists are in a mysterious funk on the question of evolution: it would seem to a more sensible view, given the criticism of darwinism in terms of statistics, that there is no way the conventional account can work. We have noted here repeatedly, citing the insight of the great scientist Fred Hoyle, who was under no threat of academic retaliation, given his brilliance and reputation, that natural selection can’t be right, period. Biologists should have moved on long ago, but, amazingly, to the great discredit of science, the whole field is stuck in an absurdity.
Students of evolution are stuck on the ground floor of genetics trying to determine how random evolution could have produced the immense spectacle of planetary life that we see. The strangest thing is the way this is imposed on the public by institutional fiat based on definitions of science. Many scientists have begun to realize the problem but still the reign of silence hangs over public communication, a dread sign of ideology at work. We can see multiple agendas, the principle one being the demand for a refutation of design arguments by those pressing an atheist anti-religious view, with very strong proponents, or enforcers, like Richard Dawkins whose false prestige has long reigned over the field of delusion. Almost laughably the religious camp has taken over the question, a group with a different ideology, able to see the obvious absurdities of darwinism and rubbing the noses of biologists in the dreaded design argument. We have tried to argue here that whatever the case with ‘design’, the issue of ‘intelligent design’ has equally backfired for religionists: we have made a distinction, something that looks intelligent is not the same as something that IS intelligent because we know of a ‘mind’ process that exhibits that factor. There is a concept that can serve here: design as teleology, again with no trojan horse creationist conclusions about theism. It seems a fine point, intelligent design versus ‘intelligent’ design, but it is enough to clear the air of the fog of crypto-theistic so-called implications. The so-called Intelligent Design movement has moved on from crude theism, and we can at this point acknowledge the reality of ‘design’ that looks intelligent whatever its source. Biologists seem incapable of grasping the implications of biological machines in their stunning complexity and design. We must conclude the obvious: if design is a factor in the outcomes of the biological machinery of life we can hardly exclude it from the source, the evolutionary field from which the complex structures of life emerge. This is a conclusion even a rank amateur can make, and apparently at this point it is left to rank amateurs to rescue evolutionary theory from disaster. Let us note the way the term ‘field’ popped into our discussion. Let’s consider its semantics.
If the question is so vexed it is because scientists are correctly applying a principle of science, but that ‘science’ is not really science at all. Science bootstraps from atomic to biochemical theory, but then something strange happens: we get ‘evolution’ and it needs a new form of science, not just constructed machines, but their actual construction. Or maybe it needs precisely what made physics so successful, fields of force.
Let us relieve the ‘burden’ of delusion with a dose of speculation about the demands of close observation: something is operating over the surface of a planet over great intervals of time with a high degree of ‘design’, and this looks ‘intelligent’ given the way it produces elusive structures of great complexity, not at random. That something must be the net equivalent of a ‘field’ of action (we won’t use the term ‘force’). Consider the nature of a field: it operates everywhere over a range, it is invisible beyond indirect detection of its effects. We might even claim a ‘field’ in physics is a default computational device that processes information about its causes and effects (?) and suspect our ‘biological field’ is a de facto set of computational/force devices embedded in the ‘everywhere’ factor operating on the surface of a planet. There is a catch to this physics analogy. This design factor would most probably have a teleological aspect.
We should remind biologists of the history of their own subject, and point first to the Kantian school that produced a a biological theory of teleomechanics, this at the dawn of the subject we call ‘evolution’. This school has been aggressively forgotten by the Darwin cult. Next, we should consider that Lamarck, again at the dawn of the gestating science of evolution, made the equivalent to our observation about fields: he proposed a two factor theory of evolution: the rise of complexity and the more random process of adaptation. Some form factor is producing a template of some kind and this is applied to environmental interaction, to produce a life outcome. Our ‘field’ is thus one part of the process: it produces a form factor and this interacts with locality to produce a robust outcome that can survive. And then it can build on this over time, in a display of rising complexity.
As with physics, once we suspect a ‘field’ we must move from speculation to some form of proof.
In the case of evolution, not so simple. But the fact remains that biology got off on the right track and then got sidetracked into the facile idiocy of natural selection. We have actually rescued natural selection in our two-pronged process of form generation and environmental interaction: can the forms emerging survive, are they fit? This is very different from random natural selection, however.
We will leave it there save to note that fringe science is filled with variants of field theories in rank not totally baseless speculative grandeur and that the idea of a field in terms of the human body has a considerable at best proto-scientific legacy in many areas, from new age to other areas of so far pseudo-science.
Here we have an ace up our sleeve: we can show evidence of ‘field action’ in the study of world history. Despite the difference between organisms developing and civilizations (developing) (we suspect however a hidden connection) we have a form factor in both cases, it seems.
Here the student of the eonic effect (check out history-and-evolution.com) in world history has what he suspects is the actual evidence of the kind of form factor standing behind emergent historical entities, the evidence of the eonic effect, which is a concrete form of our ‘evolutionary’ design factor. It takes the form of a global matrix operating in an intermittent directional sequence and a parallel set of effects that seem to defy the logic of causal succession by operating in parallel areas. This form factor operates successively as it injects a form factor which then is executed by man in carrying out its implications. Man has a hard time detecting this factor not least because knowing of its existence would inhibit free agency. (Let us note in passing that man has already suffered this confusion in quite different form, we claim, as post-theists, in terms of the constant interaction with ‘god’ of the, we fear, deluded monotheist). In fact, the inhibition of free agency is temporary and once completed man reemerges into free agency to carry out the implications of unconscious interaction with the ‘historical form factor’ we have called the ‘eonic effect’. Historians so far would deny very forcibly the existence of such a factor, but as time goes by the evidence mounts and we discover to some amazement that we have recently crossed the threshold of historical record keeping, which appears to be about five thousand years, to detect an intermittent directional sequence, and some evidence of parallel action to go with it.
We see at once where biological evolutionists are going wrong and suspect strongly that a biological field is at work in emergence of life. All we need is more direct proof!