It seems that most post-Chernobyl animals “Don’t Look Any Different from Their Non-Chernobyl Counterparts. ”
Applying darwinian thinking to history, greek history no less, sounds almost ludicrous given the analysis of the eonic effect. Darwinists are turning into theoretical dinosaurs and in any case cannot see how club-footed darwinian thinking is when applied to cultural ‘evolution’…We can only invite these almost extinct darwinians to examine the eonic effect, and especially the question of the greek archaic and punk eek effect…
Based on your comments, I don’t think you sufficiently appreciate how much the study of humanity is in a pre-Darwinian “natural history” stage—mountains of information that need to be organized by the right theoretical framework. This is the theme of my newest book This View of Life: Completing the Darwinian Revolution. The study of human history is a sterling example. The very idea of a unifying theoretical framework and the need for quantification is foreign to most historians and inimical to some. This is why the efforts of evolutionary historians, who employ quantitative methods to test evolution-informed hypotheses, are so important. Once seen from the right perspective, history provides a fossil record of human cultural evolution that puts the biological fossil record to shame! Do you really think that ancient Greek history would not benefit from such an analysis?
The secular humanists, darwinians, atheist fanatics and figures like Coyne are obsessed and think they are the real driver of the rise of religious disbelief. We support the latter here, but as an observation about history: if we examine the eonic effect we notice the way ‘religions’ of one era pass away in the next and the beginning of that is visible in the Reformation and now we see from the New Age movement that the same kind of reformation is about to occur there. This perspective is not the same as denouncing religion in toto or promoting atheism, or saying that darwinism is the key to undermining design arguments.
From one set of fanatics we confront another.
We need a true secularism, which ought, at least in my view, to see that christianity, judaism and islam are somehow doomed to pass away. The Reformation foretold that although it wasn’t quite clear at the time. So I look at the harsh statistics of the nones and the disbelievers etc with a sense of the historical aptness, even inevitability of moving past a particular set of religions spawned in the axial.
But that is a different question from rejecting religion, making atheism a new dogma, or preaching against a designed universe using Darwin. Just at the point of liberation from religion we are confronted with a new one, with Darwin/Dawkins as its prophets.
Let’s skip it. The passing of judaism and christianity may or may be the end of religion as such, the design argument doesn’t require god, and the domination of darwinism shows that ‘scientists’ can be as stupid as religious believers in taking things on faith. The problem with religious faith was just that: the issue of god is philosophical or scientific but monotheism became pernicious because faith became an absolute with dangerous results.
Free from faith and the myths of a personal god, the issue of theism simply passes into the clouds, up in the air.
The question of god I can’t answer and the attempt to make those who exit christianity into new atheists is a travesty. The strange thing about the new atheists is the way they wrecked atheism, which is a definite spectrum of philosophical exploration, but it is not a new monopoly of science based on natural selection to undermine design arguments. What a stupid new religion.
The issue of ‘god’ needs a bit of kantian study to grasp the dilemma of metaphysics and here the secular humanists, in classic form, before even the crystallization of the movement, all movements seem to become stupid. But the same can be said of atheism. The question of whether god does or does not exist is simply incoherent, gibberish and to affirm his non-existence can be just as confused as anything in theism.
The new ex-religionists are under no obligation to become atheists in the name of the (pseudo-)science of darwinism as the proof of non-design and thence atheism.
There are many possibilities for the future. The issue of religion is settled in one way: the dogmatic churches enforcing spiritual beliefs are a thing of the past. Whether religion will recur in the future is unclear and the discussion pointless if we are not clear about the meaning of ‘religion’. In fact, potentially secularism is the replacement for religion, but not as a new set of dogmas like the Dawkins cult. In fact we need a new category, the sense of religion like those of Axial Age antiquity is now scrambled and the genre is too constrained by its past to be viable. But the core meanings of religion remain.
And we cannot use science to legislate against the supernatural. The latter may be unknowable, in some kantian sense, but it may be more than real.
Look at the Tibetan book of the dead, a book composed by atheist buddhists, who claimed direct ‘knowledge’ of the ‘bardo’ or death states. Beyond that, and it might have been another religious superstition, though I doubt it is at all that simple, the question of man, the soul, consciousness, the will, reincarnation, etc, remain issues that science has consistently muddled but which are not so easy as christian theology to throw in the waste basket of scientism, and the revolt beginning with the Romantic movement shows that sooner or later people will revolt against scientism, that is pseudo-science. If ‘scientists’ claim darwinism is science, people will throw up their hands and do their own science.
As to ‘evolution’ one can recommend the view of the eonic effect with its warning of the gross fallacy of natural selection and its delusive construction of a confused picture of reality.
As for theism/atheism, it is a classic undecidable question, so far. Atheism has done the good that it can do, but it can’t eliminate the ambiguity of ‘god’ questions which ironically are on their way to a science of their own, perhaps…
Cellular quantum computing…? When Darwinism was alive and the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby was suing the school boards, the cell was a simple jelly that could arise in a warm little pond. Remember that?
Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True blog just got its millionth comment, but I can’t say I am jealous as a heretical and ostracized Darwin critic. That blog is Darwin dogmatism of the worst kind and I can’t even comment there as a critic of natural selection. You’ll be sorry is my warning as the whole paradigm of darwinism slides very slowly over the falls. The blog has attacked every book even among biologists that dissents in any way from the religion. The blog is ‘why evolution is true’, but who is challenging evolution: it is the issue of natural selection this is crackpot pseudo-science. Needless to say, noone there has read World History and the Eonic Effect, a warning of where darwinists are going wrong. Darwinism has destroyed trust in and respect for science.
Source: The eonic effect as reminder of the complexity of ‘evolution’, and its non-genetic aspect – Darwiniana
As you read this watch your brain shut down as the reigning paradigm asserts control, …
The eonic effect is confusing because it must depict a complex phenomenon over the surface of a planet over a long period of time. further, once we see the factor of directionality we have to grasp how this phenomenon could express teleology.
That said, the data of the eonic effect suggests the answer to just that.
But the mechanism remains elusive because its action is not fully visible…This however is strictly speaking about world history, but we are forced to consider that it tells us in rough terms a lot about evolution in deep time.
The ideology of darwinism completely ignores what evolution really is and is really an absurd oversimplification that covers up the ignorance on the part of biologists the complexity of the whole subject.
Source: The eonic effect – Darwiniana