This links to Nicolas Wade’s remarkable essay on the Covid virus and he brings up an issue that we suspect is behind the rigidity of issues navigating through academic and professional circles. Clearly, we have said this before, and we aren’t the first by any means, the paradigm of Darwinism is controlled by this kind of fear in a controlled context. However the case of Darwinism is a far more orwellian instance of the group think that enforces a given paradigm. It is a puzzle even beyond this because the issue of Darwin’s natural selection is so weak that even a controlled opinion space would move openly or by stealth to undermine the absurdity of such a theory. But that has never happened in the field of evolutionary biology. The field of evolution is further complicated by its religious opponents, and has a socio-political aspect in the confusion over social Darwinism. In a further twist, a theory that should have been critiqued by leftist students of ideology was given a pass and became tragically an instrument of genocide in a Stalinist context.
Our study of the eonic effect would be rejected as speculative by historians (without reading the text of Decoding) but the book provides a surprise for such critics: the model (in our usage something not as such a theory) is purely empirical and shows a ‘non-random pattern in world history’. You can dismiss a theory, but a non-random pattern is not a falsifiable theory. Its data might be faulty or incomplete, but in fact, it is a challenge to observation and facile assumptions about random history.
The extension to evolution can indeed be called speculative, but it is important to note that Darwin’s theory is entirely speculative. No one has ever observed a species in the large evolve by natural selection. the whole game is speculative from the start and outrageously so. Often the issue of natural selection arises at the level of viruses and related micro situations, but that tells us nothing about the complexity of speciation. The behavior of Darwinists here has been outrageous. In fact the data confirming evolution of a species would be so vast as to be unmanageable.
It is a sad question because the point is coming where people will never be able to trust science. There is a simple way out here: it is easy to point to the fact of evolution, even if it is so far almost impossible to find a theory. Such a theory must be on the scale of cosmology and consider the fine-tuning controversies.
Let us note that the extension of the eonic model is very conservative: it merely shows the logical nightmare of a real theory: evolution operates over the surface of a planet, somehow directs speciation (which does indeed interact with an environment), can produce the equivalent of a flying factory or laboratory operating over a species region….The real nature of a true theory of evolution is entirely beyond our ken at this point. It is perhaps not surprising that biologists played ostrich with Darwnin’s theory but that is no excuse. People have warned over and over of the danger to science of this situation, to no avail. Finally one has to stand back and watch the Science Titanic founder and sink.
Science is supposedly a self-correcting community of experts who constantly check each other’s work. So why didn’t other virologists point out that the Andersen group’s argument was full of absurdly large holes? Perhaps because in today’s universities speech can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency.