History and epochal transitions?

Our study of the eonic effect can help to see past the almost mythological ‘stages of production’ theory to the quite different ‘epochal’ sequence in world history…

September 26th, 2018 ·

History and epochal transitions?
March 26th, 2018 ·
The legacy of Marxism contains a rich load of potential tools but is marred by the confusions of theory that beset Marx (and Engels) and rendered their work overall a contradictory package in practice.
Continue reading History and epochal transitions?

Do ‘atheists’ have an edge in studying ‘ID’?

We cited an ID ‘classic’, Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, cheerfully unconcerned about its heretical stance on the Grand Paradigm, Darwinism, near the Darwin establishment, and the Darwin Propaganda Machine. Most scientists simply get fired from their jobs for even referring to ID save in condemnation. One of the ironies of science history is the way that religious groups have picked up the critique of Darwinism, then produced a new form of design argument that has undermined their useful critique. However they have made their point: biological systems show design. It is almost futile to deny this: look at any biological organ. The design factor is obvious and it has nothing to do with theology. We cannot really invoke the ‘design argument for the existence’ of god, since Kant, but that doesn’t mean design is false. But the moment we invoke ‘intelligent’ design the suspicion arises we are trying to sneak in divinity. The problem is or should be obvious: we can’t bring ‘god’ into an evolution argument, even if we are theists, since we can’t define ‘god’ at all, let alone say whether ‘that’ is intelligent. Clearly biological machines look ‘intelligent’ but that is, at least in the context of so much theological hankering, a fallacy in motion, and in the hands of theological prejudice. But in fact an atheist can deal with this confusion more consistently, and in the process get past the injection of theism into a scientific argument. But we have put ‘atheism’ in quotation marks: there are so many different definitions of ‘god’ that negating them all is impossible. So the question is really about the now seemingly primitive theism of the biblical tradition…

Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Google Books

The groundbreaking, “seminal work” (Time) on intelligent design that dares to ask, was Darwin wrong? In 1996, Darwin’s Black Box helped to launch the intelligent design movement: the argument that nature exhibits evidence of design, beyond Darwinian randomness. It sparked a national debate on evolution, which continues to intensify across the country. From one end of the spectrum to the other, Darwin’s Black Box has established itself as the key intelligent design text — the one argument that must be addressed in order to determine whether Darwinian evolution is sufficient to explain life as we know it. In a major new Afterword for this edition, Behe explains that the complexity discovered by microbiologists has dramatically increased since the book was first published. That complexity is a continuing challenge to Darwinism, and evolutionists have had no success at explaining it. Darwin’s Black Box is more important today than ever.

Source: Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution – Michael J. Behe – Google Books