Despite a certain pessimism about public ideologies, the passing of Darwinism is beginning to snowball. The religious right has played a part here, but produced a new confusion. But they rightly refused to buy into Darwinism and then took the critiques of secular critics of Darwin and produced their own ideology, of Intelligent Design. That has upgraded the old creationism/Darwinism debate but has not really resolved the issues. To claim that evolution shows ‘design’ is one thing, to call that ‘intelligent’ is speculative and it is used to promote theism finally, the whole game collapses. We cannot use evolutionary ideas to prove the existence of God. That’s a point established long ago by Kant in his critiques of metaphysics. But the ID group has produced a lot of books critiquing Darwinism.
It is hard to see how the Darwin deception or if no that then the sheer idiocy of stupid scientists can continue much longer. Cracks in the defense are widening and the cancel culture of theory domination is failing. Those exiles can now publish their own books on evolution and while that cannot easily change the whole system without the resources of big publishers to promote books the seepage is getting worse and worse for Darwinistss. You would think that physicists who can do quantum mechanics could figure out the flaws in Darwinism. Hoyle did, and that was just at the boundary of the consolidating paradigm and its crystallization in the universities. We cited Jacques Barzun’s book, perhaps one of the last of the books able to get published in university contexts without controversy. There have been good critiques recently by academics like Fodor who survived the Dawkins witch hunts, but the problem is that there is no simple alternative to a thesis as idiotic as natural selection. The path thence is uphill and cannot yet produce a real theory. The eonic effect can show how civilizations evolve, but that is not a theory but a descriptive model. The resemblance to evolution in deep time is probably generically correct in terms of format: speciation over millions of years and directed process turning into new species. There are a lot of people in academia who know what is going on but can’t speak out because they will be fired. Literally so. But the whole game is shot and now the real problem is that after Darwinism scientists will suffer a trust crash, and have some hard explaining to do.
The end of science as we know it?
The eonic model is utterly simple, almost flimsy, and yet points to something mysterious and some surprising conclusions. People will demand a science of history. There is no such science without e…