Asked, why did you become a Darwin critic?

The answer is simple, the subject is a lost cause: it needs an outsider, and one outside the religious right.
Years ago, I entered college and decided to major in classics, a spectacularly bad career move, tantamount
to majoring in panhandling. That was the start of the collapse of the classics field and the chances of getting a job were so low that getting a PhD was probably a waste of time. I started teaching myself mathematics and learned all the math up to quantum mechanics, sort of.
But I met some critics of Darwinism and the work of several scholars and got a suggestion. I was in a golden position: you can work outside the system. As I learned later, people with high-level Asperger’s sometimes are hyperintelligent in a narrow direction and have special talents. They spontaneously see patterns in things. “Why not since you are a permanent outsider try to figure out the problems with Darwinism and see if you can find a real theory? The professors of biology are hopelessly stupid, or else dissemblers’. I ended up taking the advice and worked on the question much later in the nineties. It took five years to resolve the eonic effect, based on a hunch from Karl Jaspers despite the flaws in his work: he cited the nineteenth-century discovery of global parallelism, but he couldn’t figure it out.
So far the problem of evolution is not soluble by science. And while the eonic effect is not a theory, so far beyond human intelligence at this point, it does detect evolution in the development of civilizations: we start by asking if world history shows any giveaway signs of an evolutionary mechanism. The idea of a mechanism as I discovered is too low-ball but too far off the mark. The key is to find a non-random pattern, and suddenly we see one and it is a real humdinger. Solving the evolution question requires science thinking, yes, but also ethical and aesthetic issues. Evolution can’t be a value-free science. The eonic effect foots the bill but we only see what it does over tends of millennia.
The mechanism behind the mechanism in not visible, like a Kantian noumenon, maybe. We may soon take the issue further but we can see that evolution is supersubtle and can compute organismic (and/or civilizational) structures on the fly, like a factory floating in thin air. The eonic effect is confusing because it acts in a (teleological?) sequence and a parallel action which seems to contradict directionality.
But suddenly the answer is obvious: the action must integrate over a planetary surface, to cover as much ground as possible, while also maintaining directionality in the long term. That and much more. A theory, then, of evolution involves a mysterious creative force that we still don’t understand. This is what confused many into thinking in creationist terms, a blind alley. The creative power, a dangerous term, is inside nature. We can see evolution in action: in historical terms the whole of civilization evolves in a complex action in sequence and parallel. The evidence is there, study it. Now the question is, what does this have to do with the evolution of organisms in deep time? The answer is that there is probably a direct connection. Consider what we are talking about: a planetary supermachine (metamechanical? whats’ that?)
operating over billions of years able to generate a directed sequence of species rising to the level of mind, and consciousness starting with animal brand then the deeper consciousness sometimes appearing in homo sapiens. Because evolution evolves culture next to bodies we should consider that the evolution of man and that of civilization are connected. Early evolution of organisms is evolving consciousness, animal awareness. But later in world history the ‘eonic’ evolution is also evolving consciousness, high octane brand. I really doubt the two are no connected. There you have it.The evolution of consciousness is supertricky concept, and we are in danger of confusion: we can’t observe that over thousands of years. So we can approach the with careful empirical, if possible. Darwinists will do everything they can to suppress this. They dare not critique it in public. Confusion as Darwinism has gone on so long that if they change now the whole trust in science will collapse. A special kind of idiot with a special kind of screwup, one with a long casualties

The only thinker who got anywhere close to the answer is Henri Bergson: his idea of creative evolution is remarkable. But I don’t use it because it
doesn’t connect with the facts that we now see. And the ‘new versions’ are equally a problem. We also see what no one could resolve the question. The number of books you have to read is humongous, an almost impossible task. Creative evolution as a terms doesn’t appear in the eonic model, but it points to the really difficult problem of creative innovation? Look at all the innovations of the Greek Archaic. Were they are syste, generated by a creative force. The latter term should be dropped perhaps as we look at simple correlations.
I used to run up and down the stairs of the Columbia library stacks with its umpteen million books. You are lucky if you can read a 1000 in five years, browsing thousands more, what of ten million minus a thousand? The point is totally obvious: we can’t visualize historical sequences and we always specialize. But specialization won’t work You must despecialize. The eonic effect requires careful study of Chinese, Indic,
Mesopotamian, Israelite, Zoroastrian, Greek/Roman histories, plus the Neolithic (Paleolithic, evolution of man), plus modernity, plus all the exterior histories taking world history as a single unit. 1000 books isn’t enough, but carefully balanced it is a start.

Look at modernity, the modern transition: you must study about a hundred subjects out of a thousand plus: Reformation, rise of science, revolutions and the birth of democracy, the emergence of ‘classical’ music, the history of fine art, political texts, religious texts, etc….

So we have no way to see ‘evolution’: consider the evolution of one species: Darwinian biologists claim this happens via natural selection. Where’s the proof? Noone, and certainly not biologists, has ever seen a major species evolve. That’s like a three dimensional film covering millions of years. The evolution of biochemical whatnot doesn’t count. It is not a biochemical problem at the high level. Science demands data
and evolutionary biology has almost no data. Just enough to detect evolution but not enough to see the mechanism, in each case operating over millions of years. The Darwinian presumption to have solved this is completely lunatic nonsense. I fear we are in the zone of hopeless idiots, with PhD’s. My old  friend was right, and that was sixty years ago.

The hold of Darwinism is strange and almost frightening. Fred Hoyle pointed to the absurdity of the basic tenet of Darwinism. To no avail.

Meanwhile not getting a PhD in classics was in the end a stroke of luck. You can to roam country, ride freight trains, etc…

etc…more anon…?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s