The data of the eonic effect in world history gives us one of the few direct observations of ‘evolution’ that we have, albeit of civilizations. But the evolution of man in deep time most likely shows a similar or the same type of process. And the process is way beyond current science. Perhaps that is why biologists contract into a funk: natural selection, perhaps the most idiotic oversimplification of a hypercomplex reality that you could imagine.
In general evolution has to mediate the emergence of organisms which cannot self-assemble at random. The real process of evolution is tantamount to the generation of organisms, and in history of civilizations. There is no way around this and the myths of Darwinism are completely stupid.
Evolution clearly has to be a planetary level process, and therefore perhaps a branch of the cosmology of planets which seem to be the cradles of life and its evolution.
The eonic effect although complicated shows a completely natural process that can operate over ten millennia (in fact far more than that) on a particular species, doing so in discrete phases or transitions far apart in time, and able to gestate the abstractions of form into something that can then be tested in an environment. The work of Darwin is almost ridiculous here. Lamarck was much closer although his thinking is a bit closer to philosophy than science. But his idea of evolution on two levels is born out.
At this point scientists in the biological field get authoritarian and refuse to listen to outside critics. The thinking of Dawkins is a form of delusive obsession with the design argument. We have discussed that here many times: design is real in nature and is not a theological issue so Dawkins is hysterical here in an egregious manner that has created a cancel culture of critics. The problem there is that cancel culture backfires, and encloses professional culture in a bubble of denial and draconian measures against critics.
It has to collapse at some point, and the question will remain, how could scientists get into such a strange form of group ideological hysteria.
In any case the eonic effect is clear but incomplete data of the evolution of civilizations and in a way it is what we might suspect, but awesome in its scale.
Follow the argument and skip this obsession with Darwin, shared even by leftists whose distortions of natural selection by such as Stalin have been grotesque.

You mentioned in one of your blog posts that this article ( was an interesting challenge to the eonic model. What did you mean by that? Do you touch on this in the new book? You ask a good question…

Source: Email: the eonic model and war – 1848+: The End(s) of History