Hard luck case for science: the evolution stumbling block

The question of evolution has become so confused that it is difficult now to sort out the conflict of paradigms.
We can help by compounding the confusion: the idea of the ‘evolution’ of freedom injects a kind of metaphysical curve ball into the discussion and forces the issue of the many kantian-style antinomies that haunt the whole subject.
In general the rise of science on the scale of natural entities arrives as the plateau of biochemistry and then seems to confront a barrier beyond which the physical sciences cannot seem to pass: the biochemistry of life is visible in the DNA realm, and yet the dramatic resolution seems cheated out of its victory in the way evolution fails to fall into place in progression of sciences. The idea of natural selection is the talisman of reductionist fantasy here and fulfills all the hopes of reductionist science, but falls short as the grand scheme crumbles and stops with a mystery as yet unsolved. Our idea of the ‘evolution’ of freedom, which needs to be more concrete, to be sure, shows the exact point at which science, metaphysics, and the evolution of creaturehood confront their peculiar dialectic and stall short of any kind of answer.
The reason is that ‘evolution’ is on the other side of a conceptual barrier, one that connects cosmology, next to issues of teleology, banished from science, and the suspicion of something far more complex than anything science can resolve.

Source: Evolution to history: freedom evolving – Darwiniana

 What is evolution?

The left needs to re-examine its darwinian views. Sadly, they are frozen in place (although Marx was suspicious of darwinism) even as the old paradigm is collapsing. However, paradigms come and go and there is  need for a completely generalized view of evolution that stands above the biochemical substrate. No matter how hard you try you can’t reduce evolution to chemistry (in its current form). The issue isn’t complex: the causal mechanics of chemistry is not able to explain how life emerges and it can’t even discuss the issue of consciousness.

The left is so confused it can’t read anything that isn’t hard core scientism and yet marxists struggling with Hegel should know better. Our approach has nothing to do with Hegel but that philosopher was alert to the way some ideation factor must exist. We don’t have to get into Hegel or debates over idealism and materialism. Our account speaks on its own terms at a metalevel, as afar as it can.

This account smacks of idealism, but it is nothing of the kind: the point is that some form factor emerges in evolution and this is behind the reifications of life. However we don’t see that directly.

Our discussion is like describing some process on a scratch note book, an eyewitness account of what we see and an inference that we don’t see everything. It is totally baseless to call that ‘idealism’.

The equations of physics would then be idealism…

In the end the question of evolution is intractable for the reasons above and yet we can see how easily we can at least provide a overall model. The result is simple, elegant and adapted to specifics…

Note that the ‘evolution of freedom’ applies to history and see the way in which free action and system action ‘tutor’ freedom as it were and more directly show democracy, socialism and communism as ideas emerge in periods of transition.

Source: Evolution to history: freedom evolving – Darwiniana