Darwinian delusions/Darwin and the Loss of the Enlightenment | Evolution News

The wrong-headed near idiocy of the ID group behind their often cogent critiques of Darwinian full idiocy betrays here the usual misfire against the Enlightenment. It is the core moment of emerging secular thought and that is detested, wrongly, by many religionists. The larger picture is something far far more complex in a portrait of the Enlightenment in its many facets far beyond the one-liners of these crypto-creationists. The Enlightenment contained the seeds of the religion of future, as far as that goes and is not some simplistic atheism but a liberation from the ‘pop theism’ and ‘god gibberish’ inflicted on the ocident in parallel to the far superior (atheistic) Buddhism. Not only is the Enlightenment far more complex than the reduced portrait given it is also an aspect of the ‘modern transition’ which is a vast tide of social innovations, starting we might note with the Protestant Reformation which spawns the very religion in question here.
The modern transition naturally moves beyond itself as physics rapidly moves beyond simple Newtonism but this a unity of subjects finally and is not some kind of displacement of the Enlightenment.
One should note that isolating the Enlightenment out of context forever misses the point. Consider the larger picture where the Enlightenement is counterpoinnt to itself in the dialectic of the Romantic movement and/or the figure of Kant who challenges metaphysics, both religious and secular. Secular humanism has its own limits but it has little claim on the Enlightenment as it, taking Marx as an example among many, as it makes a fundamentalism scientism of its own, far reduced from the richness of the Enlightenment and the modern transition (cf. WHEE). The discoveries of modern physics are the grandchildren of Newtonian physics and the Enlgitenment.
We should note that the history of Darwinism and atheism is itself another complexity ill served by the fundamentalism of the ‘new atheists’ and figures such as Richar Dawkins. Let us note that before Darwin we see the Enlightenment gestate a first real theory of evolution in the Kantian school of teleomechanists! The real theory of evolution is the first born of that period where Darwinism is a sort of dead fish of English capitalism and its rapid creation of a false thought monopoly.
The world of Protestantism would do well to extend their Reformation into a new future. There is absolutely no reason why modern Christianity has to preserve its mummified god-concept and it can as well create a liberating ‘semi’-‘atheism’ (in quotation marks) based on the ‘unspoken IHVH’ given as direct pointing.

In two articles so far (here and here), I have been exploring how justified the new atheists’ appropriation of Darwinian ideas is. This is the third and final post. As we’ve seen, Erasmus Darwin was a quintessential legatee of Enlightenment prepossessions. As its somewhat virtue-signaling name implies, the thinkers of the Enlightenment wished to distance themselves from anything that smacked of religious “superstition.” This led to the determination to declare a unilateral declaration of independence from the metaphysical sphere in favor of purely “scientific” modes of explanation. Yet in the face of the last century of scientific discoveries we have come to realize that hubristic expectations stemming from the Enlightenment dream of encompassing the whole of reality in some grand material theory of everything have been forced into a reluctant retreat.1

Source: Darwin and the Loss of the Enlightenment | Evolution News

If the progessives and activist left are so radical let’s see them challenge the core social darwinist ideology of Darwinism…

This is hardly anything we didn’t know twenty years ago, and yet nothing changes. The design argument is somehow transparent but the proponents of ID (intelligent design) have spoiled their case, even as the Darwinists continue their ostrich fantasy of random natural selection. It is a remarkable deadlock. The design argument is very telling but its proponents over and over spoil their case by grafting their thinking onto Biblical theology and that doesn’t work. A true design argument needs a Kantian discipline, and, ironically, a born-again secular humanist framework, something Dawkins-dominated secular humanists could never manage. Here’s the crux: world history shows design and the emergence the Israelite ‘monotheism’ (parallel to Buddhism) a design as in the eonic effect sense but this won’t work with the degenerated theism of later monotheism. Cf. Decoding World History here.
The issue of design being ‘intelligent’ is ambiguous. It could be right, but we can’t prove it, and the standard of proof of the design inference is too loose to be trustworthy, the more so as the already theistic proponents cheat at all points on rigorous arguments.
Meanwhile Marxists, secular humanists, radical activists uphold the whole idiotic Darwinian ideology/pseudo-scientific terrified if they dissent one iota they will be canceled in the ugly domination of the Dawkins/Darwin racket. And it is a racket and the racist imperialist Darwin, more than Spencer, is the real perpetrator of the social darwinist legitimation of racism imperialism and, yet capitalism. We never see how the capitalist brand enforces the ideology via the universities, science orgs and biology pros, but that backdrop is clearly there: social viciousness is all too useful for keeping capitalism in place.

Losers on both sides, and especially sad with the Marxists who follow Marx’s hypocritical embrace of Darwinism after he realized his initial skepticism was going to be a problem, starting with the idiotic Engels who no doubt twisted his arm here. Marx was a coward on the subject he saw through from the beginning.
To be clear: the design argument is strong but you can’t use it to prove the existence of God.
The left’s confused embrace of Darwin shows how it is really party to the ideology it preaches against.

I consider this simple argument as a final nail in the coffin of Darwinian unguided evolution.

Source: Species Pairs: A New Challenge to Darwinists | Evolution News

Headline news? Darwinism is basically over…

Findings could lead to advances in plant breeding, human genetics. A simple roadside weed may hold the key to understanding and predicting DNA mutation, according to new research from University of California, Davis, and the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Germany. The findings

Source: DNA Mutations Are Not Random: New Research Radically Changes Our Understanding of Evolution

Was Marx a hypocrite on the issue of Darwinism….??//Darwinism and Stalinism | Evolution News

Googling ‘natural selection + Stalin’, sure enough, I end up at Evolution News for a useful essay on the connection. But this conservative site would never acknowledge the connection of Darwinism/social Darwinism to capitalism, thus this piece/site while useful is hardly trustworthy.

In any case, our critiques of Marx are from the left and there the connection of Marx and Darwin needs careful examination. I am suspicious that Marx suspected from the first that Darwinism’s natural selection was ideological and then changed his mind, or else dissembled, under the influence of Engels, Marx one of the first to be wary of the rising orthodoxy set into motion by Darwin and his generation and which has produced so many hypocrites who must get on with their academic careers.

But, cf also:

Biographically speaking, reading Darwin’s Origin was seminal in Stalin’s own march toward a godless communism.

Source: Darwinism and Stalinism | Evolution News

The damage done by Darwinism on academic research…

I was too kind to the books cited yesterday on evolution and morality, etc…The failure of these scholars to see the problems with Darwinism vitiates their research, although some of the research remains partially valid in some cases.
Academic culture has been so muddled by Darwinism that once the paradigm falls away the public will never trust zombie professors ever again…


 Darwinism and the left’s disgrace

Darwinism is the most blatant source of social Darwinism ideology but the left is oblivious to the issue, taking Marx’s embrace of Darwin at face value. His first reaction was the right one: ‘English ideology’, but he changed his story, did he simply lie? I fear that this has confused the left for generations and led to Stalin’s genocidal version of natural selection. Marxism remains forever suspect here, another reason to move on.

I find this book useful but those in the various camps, secular or religious, still take the issue to be theism versus atheism and that is not the case. I praised this book but in reality that&#821…

Source: A new critique of selectionist darwinism – 1848+: The End(s) of History