The passing of the Darwin paradigm

The question of evolution lingers as an unsolved mystery that seems to befuddle scientists who have encased the subject in ideology behind the veil of theory, the theory of natural selection. It is a puzzle that where physics presents penetrating insight with theories that work biology is saddled with an almost incredible naivete about the emergence of life.
We can at least ground ourselves in a robust empirical discipline that has shown us a mysterious spectacle of life emerging, but the theory of the subject still eludes us and instead of the pretense it might help to simply acknowledge, as indeed Fred Hoyle did decades ago.
The tenacity of the Darwin ideology persists against the rising tide of skeptics in the field of biology itself, but the reign of stupidity enforced by figures like Dawkins is slowly eroding. In some ways the Intelligent Design movement has contributed to a certain amount of clarification here but the whole issue of ‘design’ ends up being threatened with theological legerdemain that spoils the whole effort. What else is new: the theological attack on evolution is so long-lasting that we forget that the original critique of Darwin was from science itself.
The plain fact is that biological systems show strong design and this has nothing to do with theistic interpretations of a so-called designer. The ID group has confused the issue with the use of the term ‘intelligent’ as in ‘intelligent design’ because this seems to suggest an intelligent agent, and this in turn is a stealth theism trying to become science. To be sure, this might be correct, but the proof is always missing and the desperation of conservative theists here is mostly in vain.
We cannot ironically bring the idea of ‘god’ to the question of intelligent design.
A less devious approach might help and in any case any serious biologist should consider the reality of design well away from the obsessive interpretations of religious ID-ists.
Let’s be clear, the misuse of natural selection reasoning is surely even worse than the stealth theology of the ID camp.
Kant is helpful here: the boundary of science and metaphysics is stark and the subject of evolution seems uniquely destined to confuse itself at this boundary.
The ultimate resolution here is to consider that teleology is at issue and that that is a subject for some future science. Until then the battle of the muddled darwinists and the obsessed crypto-creationists will continue.
In any case the Darwin paradigm is collapsing and new generations of students can be taught statistical reasoning without the absurdities of natural selection statistics…

—————————

What is evolution?
February 5, 2019

The left needs to re-examine its Darwinian views. Sadly, they are frozen in place (although Marx was suspicious of Darwinism) even as the old paradigm is collapsing. However, paradigms come and go and there is need for a completely generalized view of evolution that stands above the biochemical substrate. No matter how hard you try you can’t reduce evolution to chemistry (in its current form). The issue isn’t complex: the causal mechanics of chemistry is not able to explain how life emerges and it can’t even discuss the issue of consciousness.

The left is so confused it can’t read anything that isn’t hard core scientism and yet Marxists struggling with Hegel should know better. Our approach has nothing to do with Hegel but that philosopher was alert to the way some ideation factor must exist. We don’t have to get into Hegel or debates over idealism and materialism. Our account speaks on
its own terms at a metalevel, as afar as it can.

This account smacks of idealism, but it is nothing of the kind: the point is that some form factor emerges in evolution and this is behind the reifications of life. However we don’t see that directly.

Our discussion is like describing some process on a scratch note book, an eyewitness account of what we see and an inference that we don’t see everything. It is totally baseless to call that ‘idealism’.

The equations of physics would then be idealism…

In the end the question of evolution is intractable for the reasons above and yet we can see how easily we can at least provide an overall model. The result is simple, elegant and adapted to specifics…

Note that the ‘evolution of freedom’ applies to history and see the way in which free action and system action ‘tutor’ freedom as it were and more directly show democracy, socialism and communism as ideas emerge in periods of transition.

Source: Evolution to history: freedom evolving – Darwiniana