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

But what of the ‘eonic effect’:…/Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design 

This is a superb book despite my inability to follow through on an atheist’s passage into theistic considerations. But he faces all the problems with Darwin, gives an invaluable history and acknowledges the failure of Dawkins/Darwin on religion. The issue of Bergson comes up most appropriately. But the  idea of a creative force issues paper money not backed up by semantic anchors.

Let me suggest a reading of Decoding World History. Although we can’t conclude anything much about deep time, we suspect that the evolution of civilizations, which is partly visible gives us a clue to evolution of organisms in deep time.
Bergson is perhaps the only one to even come close to the core issue: some kind of creative power in nature. I don’t endorse his views as such, but he precipitates an irony: as theists posit ‘god’ as a creationist force on a cosmic level, the eonic data can precipitate the idea of a creative force in nature. But we can reach no such conclusion as final.
It is good to follow the data without premature efforts at theory.
One irony is that eonic history shows the emergence of theistic and atheistic religions in parallel, a mysterious warning that the deep source is beyond theism/atheism which are human constructs.
I will comment further on this to follow, but this book confirms my suspicion that the Darwin paradigm is in collapse.

Another point: to bring ‘god’ into nature can’t work: look at the eonic data: a ‘god’ would not act that way. The emergentism of the eonic model shows nature within limits.
The Darwin camp will continue to resist, but it is a losing battle.

Note: Intelligent design and ‘intelligent’ design: we have considered this term many times but in the context of monotheism the term is compromised and almost unusable because it will foreclose thinking on an abtsraction. :You can use the term ‘intelligent’ design far better as an atheist or agnostic. Until you can give up the Old Testament confusions over ‘Yahweh’ you will spoil the term. We must move in search of better terminology. You cannot use the term ‘intelligent design’ for both biological evolution and the Old Testament, which is pretty much what the ID camp wishes to do. The history of Israel in the approprite period shows ‘inteligent design’, but one of the things designed was a new idea of god. !! And Yahweh is a fairly primitive and still barbarous ‘god’.

The two don’t belong together…//Einstein and Darwin: A tale of two theories

The answer here as readers here know is that Einstein did physics, a real science, while Darwin was mired in pseudl-science…

Why do Darwin’s theories on the origin of species, put forth in 1859, hold a status so different from that of Einstein’s theories on relativity, published between 1905 and 1916? Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of New York’s Hayden Planetarium and co-author of the book “Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution,” reflected on that question during a recent interview at the University of Washington.

Source: Einstein and Darwin: A tale of two theories

On Evolution and Racism, Scientific American Goes to War Against the Truth 

This conservative blog belongs to the new generation of post-creationist critics of Darwinism (but not evolution). They often provide better scientific coverage of evolution than mainstream scientific orgs that are almost prisoners of the Darwin ideology. The charge that critics of Darwin are white supremacists is so outrageous that we cite this article to counter such nonsense. The question of racism in conservative religious groups remains on the table but the larger reality was the inherent racism of Darwin himself and his theory is the non-scandal scandal that has haunted Darwinism from the start.

Given evolution’s racist baggage, you might think the theory’s proponents would be somewhat abashed to accuse the critics of Darwin of “white supremacy.”

Source: On Evolution and Racism, Scientific American Goes to War Against the Truth | Evolution News

Darwin’s Genie: Misapplied Natural Selection Continues 

The left has been left behind by its own confusion in the usual blanket dogmatism about Darwin’s theory and the refusal/inability to resolve the simple fallacies surrounding Darwinism. This is a blog on the left, but we end up citing commonsense about evolution from a right wing website which had deliberately outdone the left by offering better information. There a lingering creationist perspective but as here they have done something that left is too paralyzed to do.

Historical Blunders

Critics of the Origin of Species immediately pounced on Darwin’s fallacious analogy of selective breeding with his new notion of natural selection. The former is done by people with minds acting with foresight toward a goal, they pointed out; the latter is supposed to be blind and unguided. Nevertheless, Darwin’s disciples ever since have played fast and loose with natural selection, applying it in situations where it doesn’t belong, without regard to any human intelligence involved. A recent example appeared a PNAS special issue about economics. In their introductory article to the series, Simon A. Levin and Andrew W. Lo praise Darwin as they repeat his blunder of flawed analogical reasoning.

Source: Darwin’s Genie: Misapplied Natural Selection Continues | Evolution News

  The dangers of Darwinian delusion

The scientific community has done an immense disservice to the general community. Against the views of better thinkers the views of Darwin took hold, soon exposed, but then recast as the hard paradigm. We cited Jacques Barzun from the 1940’s noting the problems of theory and then after the paradigm became hardcore and all the figures like Barzun disappeared. Dissent suddenly became a strategy of the religious right, as a menacing cancel culture took hold. Figures like Marx who saw the problem suddenly became converts. Marx should have dissented here and stopped the runaway train. But it didn’t happen.
The ID group in our century appeared in the religious right, and this was often useful critique of the problems of evolution, but the suspicion of theological bias was impossible to escape. And in any case ‘design’, which is resonant in nature, turns into a naturalist question, still unsolved. Theism just doesn’t work here.

Something that shouldn’t have happened did happen and when it collapses people will look back and ask how a whole cadre of professionals could be rigidly mesmerized by a pseudo-science of natural selection. Darwinists have corrupted the thought of a whole civilization, oblivious to the most obvious cautionary double-check. A myth as flimsy as the doctrine of the resurrection took over and created a bizarre religious ‘true belief’ syndrome. The damage done is immense and snowballs into tens of thousands of books written on false assumptions. Almost every profession has been confused here. The scale of the question is on the level of tragedy.
The ‘tough’ guys took over and made the theory into a kind of social Darwinist world view (already present in Darwin) and its connection to economic reasoning was invaluable as propaganda: what the need for ethics if natural selection as violent competition is so central in nature? Wrong again, but good for the economy, if you are a capitalist. The capitalists could care less. It’s good for business, so lie about it.

Darwinists are going to discredit a whole civilization and leave thousands in a state of hopeless confusion. One suspects the hidden control factor is indeed the hidden fiat of capitalist ideology.Too bad, fellows, if you cheat at science for ideological reasons, the result is….aha, not science

Those who see this boat heading toward the falls have learned the hard way that the cult believers are beyond reach. That Darwinism upholds a very drastic view with no evidence is a paradox of bad science, really bad science. It should be a matter of a thirty second warning the theory has no evidence, all in vein.

Source: Asked, why did you become a Darwin critic? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

 Embrace of the Darwin paradigm spells the end of the marxist framework…

This issue of racism in Darwin’s theory, at a time of the BLM, is going to prove fatal to the theory, and to the left if it can’t disengage from the whole fallacious scenario. Marxists are complicit in the use of a pseudo-science (at a time when better alternatives were available) to jusfity racism, colonialism, and imperialism….To say nothing of capitalist competition ideology….

There is simply no need for Darwinism to be defended by the left in the name of historical materialism. that is just idiocy. And the theory suggests that the left is really a social Darwinism gang with genocidal agendas.
We have over and over suggested the utterly simple exit strategy: the fact of evolution in deep time is very clear and empirically based, but no theory of evolution has yet to be formulated. That is the real state of affairs at the moment.
This is a test for the left….
Creating a new revolutionary/reformist framework is easy to do and we have almost a dozen books on the subject.

Flannery does some good work here but he has nixed the suspicion that Darwin stole his theory from Wallace. The evidence is muddled at first, but careful studies shows the probable truth. A recent …

Source: Racist Darwinism – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Racist Darwinism

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/charles-darwin-racist-spokesman-for-anglo-male-superiority/ Flannery does some good work here but he has nixed the suspicion that Darwin stole his theory from Wallace. The evidence is muddled at first, but careful studies shows the probable truth.

A recent article at The College Fix reports that the University of Sheffield’s teaching and research handbook has declared Charles Darwin a “racist” who concluded that his “renowned theory of natural selection justified the view that the white race was superior to others, and used his theory of sexual selection to justify why women were clearly inferior to men.” The Sheffield proclamation brought a hail storm of denials and protests, insisting that it was unhistorical and “morally stupid.” The Darwin defenders stress that he was opposed to slavery, and as Adrian Desmond and James Moore tried to demonstrate in their book Darwin’s Sacred Cause, that formed a conviction of universal “blood kinship” based upon common descent for the evolutionist. 

Continue reading “Racist Darwinism”