Repost and update: The fallacy of natural selection

Reposting this from yesterday…It is hard to understand the tenacity of belief in the fallacy of natural selection. Its claims and the belief system are all too clearly in violation of principles of sound science, and yet even people educated in critical thinking can’t seem to get past it.  Of course, many are or I should say, must be one guesses, silent skeptics who know the consequences of open dissent. Our downloads page has another book beside the ones on the eonic model which displaces Darwinism: The Failure of Darwinism, a somewhat rough book. Try Decoding World History, and of course World History and the Eonic Effect: the latter has suddenly been getting some new readers. The very popular Descent of Man Revisited has gotten thousands of downloads. The issue is also of a kind of ‘right’: you have a right, or better, you are ‘within your rights’ to dissent from such a theory. Not a single species (apart from bacterial cases, etc..) has ever been observed to evolve by natural selection, in deep time. Perhaps that is a hidden reason for the confusion: the need to believe, to make claims for science, and the impossibility of claims and refutations with respect to the unseen far in the past, creates its own motivations, perhaps. I have always felt that capitalist ideology is one part of the confusion.

But times are changing, finally. There were always dissenters in academia, cf. Robert Wesson’s Beyond Natural Selection. But by and large dissent is the kiss of death for professional people and the ideology enforces itself. But Fodor and Nagel finally  braved the odds and got published in a university press system Check out their books and then study the whole pack of lies codified by Google in their misleading and no doubt rigged system (along with Wikipedia) pages on those books.

But the question of evolution has no simple resolution. Scientists yearn for a comprehensive explanation of the Totality, but the buck stops at the biochemical: the hard sciences have never had their D-Day above that level, in the realm of sociology, psychology, say, and related subjects, and that includes ‘evolution’. Evolution can’t have a hard science in the sense of physics. At least, nothing is visible as yet. And the ID and creationist groups have made theology a trojan horse in the design argument. But the design argument is starting to fade. It is very suggestive but it can’t evevn make a real case for a theistic conclusion. However, ‘mind innature’ a la Hegel (see our previous post) still has

Check out the eonic model in Decoding World History. It uses simple chronology to detect what seems like a fragment of the larger realm of evolution. It gives us a glimpse, and only that, and only over a short range. Evolution is going to be fiendishly complex. It must process body plans over huge intervals of  time and operate over the surface of a planet over billions of years. Small wonder the fantasy of natural selection is pressed into service to guarantee the reach of science.

As the delusion persists the integrity of and trust in science is at risk. The whole paradigm shows how easy it is to brainwash whole societies.

Better luck next paradigm. But with evolution that moment may never come. We can however catch a glimpse.


The idea from evolutionary psychology that we evolved by natural selection and that we are adapted to the world of the Paleolithic is a fallacy. We may certainly have some archaic characteristics but modern man is as much adapted to the Neolithic and to civilization as anything else. The fallacy of natural selection has totally confused the issue: man adapts very quickly to new situations. That said, no one has really arrived at a scientific understanding of evolution beyond the idiocy of Darwinism so we can’t be quite sure just who/what ‘man’ is…

This is why Jackson has for nearly four decades been suggesting that the key to designing more sustainable systems is to recognize that we are “a species out of context.” Evolution by natural selection adapted us to a gathering-and-hunting lifestyle in small band-level societies. Prior to the invention of agriculture, humans were mostly foragers living in a social group of probably no more than 100 people, and often far fewer. Not only did our bodies evolve for that way of living, but so did our brains (our brains are part of our bodies, of course, but it’s important to emphasize this because so many people think of the human mind as somehow being distinct from the body).

Source: Opinion | The Politics of Overconsumption and Getting the Scale Right | Wes Jackson

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 )

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