The question of evolution has suffered oversimplification, to put it mildly. The natural selection hypothesis/dogma is almost incredibly simplistic and yet the idea has persisted for generations even after clear critiques. It is a puzzling issue for secularists who have been bamboozled by people like Richard Dawkins into a cult of atheist Darwinism. In fact, there is as yet no solution to the evolution question. The dynamics of evolution outstrips all the concepts we claim from science.
There are obvious reasons for this: evolution is not a value-free science, a ‘theory’ must unite the fact/value duality into a single concept. Science can’t do that.
A science of evolution must deal with ethics and aesthetics, and the issue of consciousness. Science can do none of that. We see that Darwinism is like a child’s toy to play at evolution in a fantasy.
We should be careful not to claim one ourselves, as critics. There is a distinction that is useful of ‘theory’ versus simple empiricism as a map of evolution. We can’t arrive yet at a theory of evolution. We can’t even observe it in the large. There are a lot of claims otherwise but these are in limited situations. The evolution of a species is a hypercomplex question. And the fact remains that we have
never really observed in a close range. We have never followed the evolution of dinosaurs
at each step of a species change. We do see the final results. So that is all we can do: look backward to see that evolution has occurred but we can’t yet say how. We don’t have theory on that. Natural selection was the most simplistic and idiotic detour from the founding moment of evolutionary biology. Even Larmarck was far closer. And the Kantian school produced a real start with
the generation of the so-called teleomechanists. But the Darwin delusion took hold and the subject has never recovered.
The study of history and the eonic effect gives us some hints about real evolution.
The reason is that we can catch a glimpse of the ‘evolution’ of civilizations, and it is
very likely it is a variant of organismic evolution.
Some suggestions emerge;
evolution occurs over a region and acts on a species as a whole, perhaps with subsets of such.
It operates on two levels and the higher level applies an abstracted form factor to that species.
How we are not sure but in history we can see a similar process in the sudden rapid changes in cultures.
The process resembles a field effect because it operates over a region and a time in a seri;es of
The nature of the form factor must be very complex and the results we see in the record are
still too complex for a science. But we can get a ‘glimpse’ of evolution, but theory is a long way off. Look at a car factory. The process of construction of a car is very complicated. The form factor is the map or abstract model of a car. The evolution of an organism is going to be a thousand times more complex and deal with genetics. But genetics cannot explain evolution, although it is central to its operation. This raises the thorny question of design, now intelligent design in the lingo of the religious critics of Darwinism. To me the issue of intelligent design, or better, just design, has no connection with theology although the issue of an intelligent designer remains. I doubt very seriously if an ‘intelligent designer’ idea is relevant here. But biologists get frantic at the mere mention of design. That is irrational. Design is omnipresent, but the term ‘intelligent’ in that context is misleading. Does anyone really think an intelligent designer is present at the evolutionary process and species emergence? The process must have its own mechanics and while the term ‘intelligent’ might apply as metaphor, there is not likely some ghost/geist or person doing that. It is likely to be a process still unknown to us. I think the sudden appearance of ‘learning machines’ in AI is a mysterious hint. Evolution is some kind of artificial intelligence in nature that is learning as it goes along. Speculation, but the point is to fall down in a dead feint when religious finger waggers second guess evolutionary theories. Dawkins is a kind of hysteric who gets fainting spells when the suggestion of design in nature is raised. But design must be there. Again, neural net technology which seemed flatfooted for so long is also starting to take off. These examples may not be relevant as such but they open up new vistas for naturalistic explanation, at least as science fiction on the verge of science fact some time soon. There is no direct connection here save that ‘intelligent design’ and ‘artificial intelligence’ are suddenly suspiciously consonant somehow. The point here is that something is missing in our thinking. But the answers are creeping up.
World history shows us some examples. A series of transitions in sequence and parallel seed new futures for whole civilizations. Study the Greek Archaic period and the way that works begins to become apparent. Check of Decoding World History: the emergence of new cultures is a related evolutionary riddle, save that we can see how it happened in detail even if the complexity just before us remains elusive. On the model of the eonic effect evolution might occur in bursts of ten thousand years in a sequence and/or multitasking in parallel incremental remorphing of a given entity. After ten thousand years the entity is left alone to interact alone and/or adapt to an environment. A sequence of such sequences over tens of millennia times ten might result in speciation.
Google ‘biological machines’ and look at the machines that emerge in nature. Students have been pressganged into ritual repetition of natural selection, and taught to be idiots. Those machines are naturalistic, the point is clear, so ‘intelligent’ or not hardly matters: the design factor is central and it is nature’s workshop.