(1999)Further to the story we noted last night, that possibly one-third of biologists now question Darwinism, this might be a good time to bring up Colin Patterson (1933-1998) again. He was a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and he offered an awkward question to col
According to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is over 415 parts per million (ppm), far higher than at any point in the last 800,000 years, since before the evolution of homo sapiens.
Coral experts around the world said it was impossible to extract a multi-century record of El Niño events. But now a persistent effort has produced the world’s first 400-year long record of El Niño events. And the changes researchers have found to El Niños in recent decades are startling.
In the wake of a new article critiquing Darwin and citing the ID group we might reference our huge number of posts on the issue, starting with J.G.Bennett’s engaging perspective, one of which I am critical but which actually finds a new approach to the question. Bennett’s work is provocative because it suggests something like spooky physics stands behind evolution: his idea of time, eternity and hyparxis, while hardly science suggests how ‘timeless’ form factors lurk behind temporal realizations. Sorry, fascinating but not yet science.
Beyond that we have our discussions of the eonic evolution of civilization, a topic that should be required reading for anyone who has been stranded in postdarwinian puzzlement.
To deal with evolution requires learning how to visualize complex transformations stretching over long periods of time, almost impossible. But the eonic effect in world history gives an example so to speak. While this is not organismic evolution it is none the less ‘evolution’ of some kind. To see this requires careful study.
The eonic model is in many ways your next assignment after seeing the failure of darwinism.
The eonic effect shows one way that evolutionary directionality can work itself out in practice as a series of discrete intervals and transformations, a sort of generalized punctuated equilibrium. But there is a mysterious form factor that we don’t see and this makes any theory of speciation problematical. The issue of the Cambrian falls into place in that context (which doesn’t quite explain it): we see that form factor suddenly reify in a temporal dimension.
The issue of evolution ends up inconclusive. The ID group has perhaps frittered away their successful challenge to darwinism in the quagmire of ‘intelligent design’. The problem with the latter is that it is used to connect with theistic design in history in the manner of the Old Testament.
It is not valid to use arguments against darwinism to prop up religious historicism.
I am often struck by the lack of historical knowledge in the public, a factor often noted.
Although knowledge is not the same as that of intelligence the fact remains that historical study is one way out of very many to expand intelligence. A study of the eonic effect takes this to the ultimate. Let me note that I exempt myself from the judgement since I had many years to cheat: my level of intelligence is above average (ca. 115, I guess, with verbal potentials, I can write a bad sonnet in fifteen minutes, a tad above the limerick), but not einsteinian.
The useful thing here is that everyone flunks the test, to start. So there is no nonsense about being smarter than anyone else: everyone starts off equally. Remarkably professional historians being highly specialized have proven blind to the eonic effect which is an exercise in pattern recognition stretching over the whole field of world history, but especially the last five thousand years, and over all regions equally distributed. Note the latter point, All regions equally distributed
The test, which takes one to four years is to read a thousand books on history and to find a non-random pattern in that data set (which you can extend to include the paleolithic and deep time, as history turns into evolution, so to speak, in fact the two are janus-faced ). You may cheat and use the eonic data in print such as it is and you are free to dissent from that interpretation and/or refute the claims: but you would do well to be wary of claiming that world history shows pure randomness): you can propose your own interpretation, wary that the eonic effect will likely falsify your own claims.
Note: one of those books may be World History and the Eonic Effect, can you cheat and just read that book? By all means, but unless you read the whole spectrum of books you may not know what your are reading…It is possible to complete the test in a few months. But everyone will call you crazy and the book bunk, so unless you read the books you will not win any arguments with the brainwashers trying to claim your mind.
On the way you must resolve a lot of difficulties: the nature of dynamical systems versus historical systems. The question, what is evolution? The key issues of philosophy form Plato to Kant, and their relationship to the overall exercise. The nature of religion in general and religions in particular: the case of christianity, versus buddhism, etc… But you don’t have to solve all those issues: you can up to a point simply describe them.
This impinges on the issue of nature/supernature, and the nature of secularism…the list goes on and on…There a dozens of such riddles on the way: you can put many on ‘hold’ and proceed without fully resolving them. But the issue of christian salvation (if any) and/or buddhist enlightenment, or the true tao enter inexorably. Delusions, myths? These will likely defeat you so you can adopt descriptive summaries. In addition the histories of science and technology enter along with those of the nature of economics. Do you need newtonian physics and/or quantum mechanics here? probably not, but a few sneak peaks at these subjects is in order.
I have made my point: detecting a pattern in world history is not a trivial task. One might claim that knowledge accumulation is not intelligence but the two blend into each other and as you attempt this your de facto intelligence will inexorably start to increase. etc…
Let me say at once that this exercise is not suitable in general and better ways to exercise the mind might be in order. Whatever the case, it is clear that there are dozens of similar projects to develop reasoning and intelligence, even as they impinge on unknowns, and unsolved riddles. This particular case extends beyond standard science, and religious faith, and is helped greatly by Kantian warnings about metaphysics…This is open to any level of intelligence with a guarantee it will be a brain stretcher…The issue of history is useful because it is open to any level as a staring point. The whole question could be done with a thousand history comic books, but with footnotes…
It might be claimed that old people with a whole life of study versus beginners with little knowledge are not comparable. Very true, but this is not a standard IQ test with a score at the end. There is no score, and the criticism that intelligence and knowledge are distinct is true, but not really the point. Since your intelligence will undergo change as your take the test, the idea of a score is meaningless.
It is in fact a process almost guaranteed to avail of neuroplasticity.
Find something similar in your given case, etc…
The point is that homo sapiens has barely scratched the surface of his ultimate potential. Such complex pattern recognition exercises must be abundant and deserve a future. Physics offers many things like this, but history is better because it is open to all levels as a starting point.
The nature of historical knowledge is highly controlled by ideological entities of all kinds, religious, academic, political, etc…They will move at once to denounce the data on the eonic effect. Offer them a simple reponse: have you read those thousand books?
Source: Giving Up Darwin
Source: A Green New Deal for Europe