Update: Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx
The ID group complains of censorship. But they are hoist on their own petard. After twenty years they still haven’t discussed the issue of design in history: the eonic effect and its interpretation.
The ID gambit is a sneak attack on god thinking but it can’t work because it can’t mix two modes: demonstration as science and faith as religion. You can’t produce much of an ID argument is you are also committed to taking ‘god’ as ‘faith’.
We have discussed Barzun here many times, but here we see the discotuters are trying to absorb him into their propaganda, as they did with Wallace.
Barzun is one of the best critics of Darwin, in an unexpected time and place. Barzun has no connection to Meyer with his current ‘god’ campaign.
The ID critics have produced a lot of useful work exposing Darwinism but then the ID angle confuses the issue with an uncritical equation with theology.
Let’s be clear: you cannot use the ID argument if you combine evolution reasoning with Biblical history. The Old Testament seems a prime example of
intelligent design, the problem is that it is not history but myth.
The issue of ‘intelligent’ design is hopelessly confused. So what if evolutionary design seems intelligent? We cannot conclude anything because we have no knowledge of anything with that supposed property.
The ID people have played with fire and will end up confounded: the best approach to design, perhaps even ‘intelligent’ design, is atheism. Once the archaic god idea is flushed out the discussion poses its real mystery.
We cannot determine whether phenomena in nature that look ‘intelligent’ have any ‘personal’ aspects in any category of thought.
We have put ‘atheist’ in quotation marks because atheists are almost as confused as religious believers, but they can at least evade simplistic confusions over ‘god’ created by the deceptive ‘intelligent’ adjective designed with guile to bridge pseudo-science with biblical faith.
The discussion of ‘design’ in history is brought to a new coherence by the study of the ‘eonic effect’ and our model of history. Then we do indeed see ‘design’ in nature and yet we are not sure exactly what it points to .
Source: Recognizing the “Transformative” Impact of Barzun’s Darwin, Marx, Wagner, Eighty Years Later | Evolution News
In the 1940′ no less…! Since that time dissent has been made almost impossible.
Source: Appreciating Historian Jacques Barzun’s Critique of Darwinism | Evolution News In his book Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage, Barzun was audacious enough to subject Darwin …
Source: Appreciating Historian Jacques Barzun’s Critique of Darwinism | Evolution News – Darwiniana
The left has ended up as a Marx cult and the result is not as effective as it might have been if a broader range of thinking had informed its beginnings. It is not reactionary or counter to socialism to point out the failure of Marx’s historical materialism as a theory, along with this inaccurate depiction of economic epochs, feudalism, capitalism, etc,…The scheme doesn’t work, as Marx himself realized as he invented an ad hoc category of the ‘Asiatic mode of production’, which is what?
The whole issue of ‘modes of production’ is crippled by these bad theories. And these systems are not fundamental drivers of world history. The left needs a larger cultural descriptive history that can help to ensure a socialist future doesn’t start amputating all other categories than the economic.
Marx ended up enforcing the false mystique of capitalism by making it one of his historical epochs, but that doesn’t work and has been a gift to capitalists who can cite Marx to claim that capitalism must endure until its full potential has been realized. That is nonsense, and dangerous to boot. The capitalist class wants to privatize space exploration and extend capitalism into the galaxy at large. In an unexpected expose of this the film Avatar made explicit science fiction out of this and the Corporate takeover of celestial bodies, Pandora?, is very grim in the tale that is a good take on Last of the Mohicans.
Continue reading “Marx’s second rate theories…//Darwin, Marx, Wagner : Critique of a Heritage Barzun, Jacques”
This odd classic contains three critiques, of Marx, Darwin, and Wagner. The critiques of Darwin and Marx are extremely cogent and it is remarkable that this book appeared in the 1940’s. It is testimony to the power of ideology that the critique of Marxism and Darwinism are still virtually impossible, beyond the neoliberal and/or creationist brands which are usually not believable. The critiques from the capitalist world were always disregarded but Barzun’s cuts to the quick in a different vein, this from a professor of literature.
Barzun in the old-fashioned vein of the early critics of Marx (going back to the nineteenth century) makes mincemeat of Marx’s pretensions to theory, his personality flaws and the larger world of early proto-socialism that was so unfairly suppressed in Marx’s destructive vituperation, even all his ideas were taken up without acknowledgment from such sources. It is a sad legacy now dominated by Marxist idiots caught up in a frozen paradigm. At a time of crisis a post-marxism needs to be recast in a more sensible fashion. The current Marxism will never geet a second chance in its current form.