belated ‘bye’//A Farewell and Remembrance | Uncommon Descent

Source: A Farewell and Remembrance | Uncommon Descent

I hadn’t noticed but see that Dembski has closed his well-known blog.
Although a long antagonist to the ID camp I have always respected the critiques of Darwinism by Dembski, which I have also criticized here. I began blogging at Darwiniana, if I recall, a little after the Uncommon Descent blog started. Tens of thousands of posts have produced a kind of blog fatigue mania, but I survived and I have shared the critique of Darwinism from a secular perspective that is neither quite theistic or atheistic (agnostic?) and I have been able to stand my ground against both sides because my World History and the Eonic Effect gives me a unique insight into ‘evolution’ as it really is as we see it in World History which has a concealed dynamic which almost has to be a hint at least about evolution in deep time. That could be speculation but the glimpse given once understood almost has to be relevant to a real solution. The design argument is completely relevant but the ‘design’ in history cannot be a theistic argument. Note that the ‘design’ argument in the history of Israel shows not the intervention of ‘god’ in history but a mysterious eonic effect. Thus the ID camp ends hoist on their own petard and in fact an ‘atheist’ might be able to assess ‘intelligent’ design with more clarity. But the issue appears to be beyond the grasp of the nutniks in the Darwinian camp, an unbelievable cadre of frozen ideological stupidity seemingly forever. It is a dangerous scandal for science and yet few physicists beyond Fred Hoyle have been able to speak on the subject. I suspect many are simply lying because they have jobs to protect.
The ID camp rightly deserves credit for attempting rigor that is not creationist and the result is a lot of useful information about evolution. But even so the religious angle was always there. The problem to me is that you might find design and call that ‘intelligent’ but then you are stuck with a crypto-creationist suggestion. Let it be said, design is very real but in the end it is mysterious and you cannot graft the ID argument onto Christian theology. On that point the ID camp is stuck. That said the anthropomorphic suggestion is very strong. Darwinism suppresses the reality with natural selection nonsense. Without that and without theology you end up almost spooked by the uncanny sense of a designer. But you simply cannot graft any of that onto theology. The eonic effect shows something places all that inside history and at that point creationist confusion turns into polytheism, a Kantian metaphysical ghost thought dead. The only thinker who seems to have gotten the point is Henri Bergson with his creative evolution (with many imitators in multiple New Age figures, Aurobindo?). The eonic effect gives a strong sense of creative energy at work at the point where ‘macrohistory’ seems to be the generator of most of the great innovators in history. A figure like J.G. Bennett even has a ‘creative energy’ model in relation to ‘conscious energy’ but it seems to fall short as science. In any case I would recommend a secular version of design and WHEE is a good place to start. But the evolution issue is still an unsolved mystery for all camps and the theistic angle is slowly retreating in the tide of secularism which is however at risk from ideological pseudosciences like Darwinism.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s