Re: Marx beyond theories of history…neo-communism, and the context of evolutionary civilization
Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2021 11:50 am
Thanks for reply. The issue of Darwinism is clear: as Fred Hoyle noted long ago, natural selection can’t even get one peptide right. The so-called scientific community has been stuck in statistical confusion for going on two centuries. I don’t have to debate this anymore. Do the math, first. Shoulders of giants? Really? I have a lot of material on the issue. Online, free of charge.
Postcapitalist futures: online texts
The real problem is how so many scientists could support Darwinism given the obvious difficulty. Hey, probably the problem is ideology (as Marx suspected at the start before he changed his mind and started lying about it) and is good backup for capitalist market ideology.
If socialists can’t figure this out, they are fired, time for socialism 2.0. Ditto for marxmail subscribers.
I do not talk of eons or the supra-historical. I do use the term ‘eonic’ carefully defined as intervals of 2400 yeas as historical data between 3000 BCE and 1800 AD. This EMPIRICAL data is very provocative and suggests a frequency hypothesis. But no theory of history as science exists yet, for reasons the ‘eonic data or model’ makes clear. Hypothesis. More data is needed. But the probability here is high enough to merit close analysis. The term ‘eonic’ was perhaps a bad choice, but it is useful as a ratcatcher or flypaper for the dozens of bad cyclical theories of history. The data shows why people have been so confused here for so long. The idea is hardly any worse than Marx’s (cyclical) theory of ‘epoch’ and ‘stages of production’, feudalism, capitalism, communism…another bad cyclical theory. The ‘eonic effect’ is not a theory but a data set that looks like an evolutionary frequency (like punctuated equilibrium staggered in a series) of some kind, and may give a glimpse of (organismic, not civilizational) the ‘evolution’ of organisms (the two evidently related). Continue reading “Archived: email re: marxmail, the ‘eonic effect’ defined in one paragraph”
The current pandemic in the US is a puzzle in the sphere of vaccination. Tens of millions refuse vaccination in what is seen as irrationalism. So it is, but consider the issue of evolution. The theory of natural selection in Darwinism has been critiqued over and over, hundreds of times, and yet the paradigm remains in place with a factor of domination that remains very authoritarian. The puzzle is the sheer stupidity of the theory of natural selection taken statistically. But even statisticians are silent here.
Thus for over two generations, the entire (nearly so) scientific community has been in lockstep (and lockjaw) on a pseudoscientific form of idiocy on evolution.
In that vacuum, the religious right has been handed a golden opportunity, and for over two generations exploited this strange befuddlement of science to their own advantage, but in the process actually attempting to stick with the science keeping creationism in the background and attempting to actually make sense on the subject of evolution. The result was on the one hand the confusing ‘intelligent design’ movement and paradigm, but beside that a considerable and cogent set of critiques of Darwinism, scientism, and the selectionist confusion. In the process they have relentlessly promoted the appearance of religion outplaying and correctly critiquing science. The issue of intelligent design is indeed controversial but one can simply ignore that aspect and take note of the many useful citations of real science, with some suggestions on the issue of evolution. The question of design is a lost cause: design is pervasive in nature and the attempt to claim that natural selection accounts for design by the cadre of superidiots like Dawkins has been a waste of breath. Nature shows design at all levels and the issue is hardly one of theology. The question of ‘intelligent’ design is about the same, but somewhat tricky: we have no scientific way of discussing the issue of intelligence in nature. Nature seems intelligent, but that is a useful metaphor unless someone can resolve the ambiguity with some kind of evidence, of which there is none directly. But the point is that design as such is a naturalistic issue pointing to a science we don’t that we don’t have yet. Theology, what to say. A pagan’s view of nature is hardly on the agenda of the religious right.
Let us note then that for over two generations the religious public on the right has been given better information on Darwinism, if not evolution, than what scientists have provided to the secular public. Smal wonder then that many conservatives are wary of scientific claims. They have been shown directly the idiocy and/or mendaciousness of scientists and …
well, …and just might be suspicious of claims for vaccination.
A disgraceful failure of science. Scientists, or else outsiders, such as here, need without delay to take down the Darwinian pseudo-science, really a form of propaganda.
A comment at academia.edu ‘s debate on Evolution and Atheism. It is sad to watch the triumph of idiocy manufactured by bad, or dishonest, ‘science’ education. The failure of natural selection is totally obvious to any statistical analysis, and yet persists as ideology because powerful people enforce it in educational brainwashing mills. I have always thought the reason was the promotion of social Darwinism in public economic ideology. It is ideal for psychopaths who wish a free hand in capitalist competition and ‘dog eat dog’. Sad is the inability of leftists to escape the universal muddle, although Richard Lewontin seems to have known better, but never made his views clear.
No matter how many times you say Darwinism as a theory of evolution has no evidence for its claims: i.e. random mutation and natural selection, people just go into a kind of trance as the brainwashing of thought takes hold. To do science you must have evidence but no one has the evidence for a single species in the large evolving by chance. Confusion arises over what is really microevolution and/or the sloppy usage using the term evolution for, say, Covid molecular mutations, in RNA no less. That does not extend to the large-scale evolution of species, a hypercomplex operation that is still a complete mystery. Google the question and scroll down from the propaganda first page to some serious critiques of the impossibility of random evolution where the odds of producing a single protein by chance are astronomically low, vanishingly low. Look at a strand of molecular structure: the odds of producing a designed structure are so low that there can’t be any debate there. And the improbability multiples across repeated links in any chemical chain. It is hard to see how in a culture where statistics is a hard rigorous discipline anyone could think otherwise.
But figures like Dawkins in their obsession to promote atheism have distorted the whole debate, and worse using their professional power to conduct witch hunts of any professional figure in biology who dissents, a disastrous destruction of science. The design issue seemed once to be connected with creationism, but the god angle is waning more and more. You have to discuss design in evolution andthat has nothing to with creationism…
Guess what, scientists can’t be trusted…
Lewontin has also a post-Darwinist, but he was to scared to really say so in public.
“The apparent homogeneity within races as compared to the ‘obvious’ difference between them stems partly from the fact that our consciousness of racial differences is constantly being reinforced socially because racial distinctions serve economic and political ends.”—Richard Lewontin, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1974. Pg. 152.
Source: Richard Lewontin: Race Science for the People | Portside
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’s because I use the critical part but disregard the authors neo-theism, which spoils his argument. Finding design in nature or evolution has nothing to do with ‘god’. The term ‘god’ is so abused it has no meaning anymore. And this author has no sense of Kant and his critiques. Refuting natural selection provokes a metaphysical question mark, but is not evidence of the existence of god. It just means nature is more complex than we thought. How could evolution not show design? It is remarkable but also generates the question, so what?
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 a…
Source: But what of the ‘eonic effect’:…/Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design – 1848+: The End(s) of History
This free book has had thousands of downloads: I think the tide is turning against Darwininism, that is the theory of natural selection, not evolution in general as a fact.
For almost a century the scientific community has been either wilfully deceitful or completely manned by idiots about the theory of Darwin, an almost incredible feat.
It seems like every civilization get fixated in a delusion and can’t escape from that. We speak of progress but that doesn’t include Darwinism which is a pseudo-science of now disastrous force that has turned science into a cult of random evolution. The entire biology profession id confused here. The eonic model doesn’t look like much but it can help to restructure thinking toward the ultra-complex nature of evolution, both in deep time and in history. Unfortunately the confusion is so entrenched that it looks like an endgame for modernity. Especially alarming is the obvious nature of the basic statistical confusion. Not even statisticians can seem to blow the whistle. Take a guess: your civilization is in big trouble.
Decoding World History ED1_dwh1x It is worth considering this fascinating depiction in terms of the ‘eonic effect’ so-called to see that with one exception all these advances correlate …
Source: Direct correlation with eonic sequence?!///Human Progress – – 1848+: The End(s) of History
This is an entry, below, to the Evolution and Atheism debate at academia.edu. The debate over theism and atheism is pointless. Dawkins is obsessed and in the process has wrecked the science of biology, along with a whole cohort of strangely mesmerized biologists. When the spell of this delusion lifts people will ask how it is that so many men with PHD’s could fall into such a pitiful naive ‘theory’ based on the statistics of natural selection. What else can people do? The theory of natural selection should provoke mistrust in science. Scientists have gone nuts.
Part of the problem is the obsession over design, and the secular humanist obsession with atheism. The question of design generates paranoia in Dawkins et al. Even the hint of design smells like ‘god’. But that is nonsense. We can take the most extreme version of ‘intelligent’ design and call it true and still that tells us nothing about god. The proponents of ID have their own confusions: they have rightly critiqued Darwinism, but have been unable to really escape their own framework. Again to say evolution/organisms show design is right, but to call that ‘intelligent’ implies something in nature that seems like ‘god’ all over again, OR, as the ID in retreat now say, something ‘intelligent’ in nature. Let’s say they are right, but that is not specific, is about nature not ‘god’ and misuses the predicate ‘intelligent’ for a void we don’t understand.
A massive AI computer at the level of evolution on a planet would explain everything in a minute. I don’t believe that as such but he question of design, as so often is a puzzle for a new branch of math, or a something related.
In many ways the Marx/Hegel debate is the grandfather of the current debate. The debate of Hegel and Marx was a stalemate because Marx ended up in the Darwin camp while Hegel was one of first or else best of the ‘ID’ philosopher/theologians. Note however that ‘Geist’ is the ‘intelligent’ X, but it is not’god’, so what is he talking about?
Whatever the case it is almost urgent get science/biology unstuck here and move on. The confusion over Darwinism has destroyed the reputation of science for millions and not just on the religious right. But the conservative twist is important to understand. Several generations of religious conservatives have been told about the absurdity of Darwin’s theory and now we see the rejection of science in a pandemic.
The reality of design requires explanation, not religious debate. The factor of design simply shows our science is still primitive.
This debate is an echo, intentional or not, of the Dawkins strategy to use Darwinism to prove the case for atheism. The fanaticism of Dawkins is counterproductive and atheists don’t need Darwinian theory to justify atheism. Atheism and theism suffer mutual incoherence and the question of atheism has a slight edge because the conventional theism is almost primitive nonsense. The Old Testament is a remarkable document but after all its thunder bequeaths a conception of god that belongs to the childhood of man. Its status plummets and that has nothing to do with evolution theory. The latter is a set of facts about the appearance of species in deep time but those facts have as yet no theory. The theory of natural selection is almost idiotic: focus on the complexity of an organism and consider the statistical impossibility of chance evolution. Please do it and help to rescue a social disaster in the mass delusion of Darwinism. The issue of atheism stands on its own terms, and challenges the childish myths of ‘god’. The connection with evolution one way or the other is not there.