We have repeatedly tried to expose the foundation of the social darwinist ideology at the core of darwinism. The left has consistently hedged here by blaming social darwinism on something else than…
Evolutionary biologists have to be the dumbest of scientists…For over two generations critics have pointed to the failures of selectionist darwinism but the professional cadre is almost belligerent in its rigidity. Small wonder then that the crackpot evolutionary psychology should also be a stronghold of confusion.
A look at the eonic effect suggests something vastly more complex and further that what we call the eonic effect gives us a glimpse of the larger dynamics of evolution, and this has occurred throughout history.
A key issue, since the crackpot bestseller of Harari sees man as a coming ‘god’, is the inability of biologists, or scientists in general, to grasp the phenomenon of ‘consciousness’. Its account in terms of natural selection is idiocy.
The discussion of evolution and its theories in Chapter 2 of World History and the Eonic Effect (WHEE) remains relevant even after almost twenty years, a sign of the frozen state of evolutionary th…
The eonic effect needs a college course… June 19th, 2018 ·
The previous post raised the question of historical study using the eonic effect. The eonic effect should be the subject matter for a college course, but unfortunately professional historians are extremely critical of anything that smacks of ‘speculative’ history and would never allow such a course. Perhaps that can change. Continue reading “Deprogramming historical brainwashing”
But the end of darwinism was signaled even as it started: Jacques Barzun in the 1940’s even as the ‘Synthesis’ was being concocted, clearly exposed the whole game, along with others. Fred Hoyle sank the scheme of darwinism on the spot in the fifties.
The appearance of atheist critics of Darwin and darwinism, such as Jerry Fodor, despite a lot of counterattacks, signaled the end of the reign of dogmatic darwinism…or did it?
Dawkins was clever in his seductive use of terminology, and able to defend himself whenever the absurdity of his formulation was pointed out.
The idea of the selfish gene is attacked but then defended on the grounds the critic didn’t understand the meaning.
They understood all too well the confusion of categories…
This is a good example of the way darwinian assumptions confuse scientists and lead to wrong conclusions. The statistical problems of natural selection have long since discredited straight darwinism, and we have grounds for rejecting that theory, concluding nothing on that score about intelligent life in the universe.
It would seem suspicious: intelligent life is abundant in the universe because life in emergence is not random.
It is almost incredible that this kind of nonsense goes unchallenged: most scientists are too intimidated to speak out