But what of the ‘eonic effect’:…/Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design 

This is a superb book despite my inability to follow through on an atheist’s passage into theistic considerations. But he faces all the problems with Darwin, gives an invaluable history and acknowledges the failure of Dawkins/Darwin on religion. The issue of Bergson comes up most appropriately. But the  idea of a creative force issues paper money not backed up by semantic anchors.

Let me suggest a reading of Decoding World History. Although we can’t conclude anything much about deep time, we suspect that the evolution of civilizations, which is partly visible gives us a clue to evolution of organisms in deep time.
Bergson is perhaps the only one to even come close to the core issue: some kind of creative power in nature. I don’t endorse his views as such, but he precipitates an irony: as theists posit ‘god’ as a creationist force on a cosmic level, the eonic data can precipitate the idea of a creative force in nature. But we can reach no such conclusion as final.
It is good to follow the data without premature efforts at theory.
One irony is that eonic history shows the emergence of theistic and atheistic religions in parallel, a mysterious warning that the deep source is beyond theism/atheism which are human constructs.
I will comment further on this to follow, but this book confirms my suspicion that the Darwin paradigm is in collapse.

Another point: to bring ‘god’ into nature can’t work: look at the eonic data: a ‘god’ would not act that way. The emergentism of the eonic model shows nature within limits.
The Darwin camp will continue to resist, but it is a losing battle.

Note: Intelligent design and ‘intelligent’ design: we have considered this term many times but in the context of monotheism the term is compromised and almost unusable because it will foreclose thinking on an abtsraction. :You can use the term ‘intelligent’ design far better as an atheist or agnostic. Until you can give up the Old Testament confusions over ‘Yahweh’ you will spoil the term. We must move in search of better terminology. You cannot use the term ‘intelligent design’ for both biological evolution and the Old Testament, which is pretty much what the ID camp wishes to do. The history of Israel in the approprite period shows ‘inteligent design’, but one of the things designed was a new idea of god. !! And Yahweh is a fairly primitive and still barbarous ‘god’.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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