Decoding World History Final3xf_ED1
This is a very interesting article and an interesting challenge to explanation in the eonic model. I would consider its conclusions very seriously, but…A key ‘but’. It is a challenge that might induce not glib answers but a pause to review an old question in a new context. But the eonic model is not a totalizing theory of either history or evolution, and there are a lot of things it doesn’t answer. The same is true of science in general. The issue of war is very tricky in the model, but basically the macro effect it points to never generates war.
The key issue here is that Darwinism is a pseudoscience: the theory of natural selection is a form of lunacy, statistical and otherwise. The point was made by Fred Hoyle and others long ago. But to no avail. The result is the confusion of Darwinism which has sowed tares in all kinds of other fields. Let’s state the point again: it is not true, False, that natural selection explains general evolution. That theory can never be right: it is fallacious as to the laws of probability. This has ended up almost comically as a tool for amateurs to intervene in the delusive, institutionally enforced paradigm of hard Darwinism. Scientists have made fools of themselves and of science here. Over and over and over again oustsiders have tried to challenged this mass delusion. Some progress has been made by the few academics that have dared to stand up to this farce. But the inertia and entrenched character of the theory persists. Part of the problem is that professionals are too afraid to dissent here: they can and will be fired on the spot. How did such nonsense come about? Continue reading “The eonic effect on ‘war’…darwinist scientism is a menace to humanity…//War is Not Innate to Humanity: A More Peaceful Future is Possible – Darwiniana”
