9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited(3)
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.
Instead of extolling Darwin’s theory as the revealed mechanism for uncovering life’s mysteries, Richard Lewontin described it as projection onto the natural world of the ideology of the Victorian haut bourgeoisie, the self-proclaimed fittest specimens in their own struggle for existence. More
Source: Richard Lewontin: Demolition Man of the Modern Synthesis – CounterPunch.org
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.
The University of Sheffield’s teaching and research handbook has declared Charles Darwin a “racist.”
Source: Charles Darwin: Racist Spokesman for Anglo-Male Superiority? | Evolution News
Men like Lewontin must surely have known that their position was fallacious. The deception is monumental. The left has to set the record straight, and move on.
It seems sad that Lewontin and his circle, for all their preaching about ideology were stuck in the selectionist Darwinism rut. Richard Lewontin, who died aged 92 recently, was one of the most tale…
Source: Richard Lewontin—the Marxist geneticist – 1848+: The End(s) of History
It seems sad that Lewontin and his circle, for all their preaching about ideology were stuck in the selectionist Darwinism rut.
Richard Lewontin, who died aged 92 recently, was one of the most talented geneticists of his generation.
This could have been a great article if it could get straight on Darwinism. The Scopes Trial was a strange moment that everyone has misunderstood. But the issue was evolution and Darrow had an easy victory when the real debate (perhaps Darrow was genuinely confused) was over the issue of natural selection. This article protests disinformation, but while issue of evolution is clear empirically, the question of the mechanism of natural selection is either deliberate disinfo or severe ignorance for most of secular culture under the tent of cancel culture on Darwin’s ‘theory’. Check out blogs like Uncommon Descent: the religious right has repented and now has an edge over the brainwashed secular humanists as religious Darwin cultists.
https://redfortyeight.com/?s=darwinism+critique
Source: Experts beware: America may be headed for a Scopes moment – Alternet.org
This is a fascinating article with a telling and tiny flaw: in the midst of all this research Scientists are confused about Darwin’s theory. He does’t deserve the company of Newton et al. Anyone writing about pandemics still confused about Darwin’s theory is a part of the problem. Such people often speak of ‘evolution’ in these discussions of biochemical entities. But the term can’t be used across the board from viruses to species to cultures. Darwin is no hero. There were far better approaches brewing even before him, but his muddle-headed thinking, in part the result of Wallace’s soon to dissent from early thinking. Epidemiologists who are also Darwinism are part of the problem, no? The unconscious strain of genocidal racism seeps from the Darwin milieu with its social Darwinist idiocy.
I invite scientists to look at the cornucopia of gifts bestowed on evolutionary man, whose nature disposes him to the most ruthless of errors. You can’t have it both ways: you can’t say viruses evolve, and apply that logic as theory to organismic evolution, or to man. But the scientific community is almost beyond correction at this point. A distinction of micro and macro evolution has often entered just here.
One can only suspect that capitalist thinking is at work here. It is a puzzle of the paradigm stranglehold of bad science which lurks at the core of modern research like a dogma of the Catholic Church.
Scientists are stickers for evidence and proof, then goof completely on the core subject of evolution.
I
n the West, Galileo [Galilei], [Rene] Descartes, [Isaac] Newton and [Charles] Darwin—the giants upon whose shoulders we stand—stooped over upon threat of jail or ostracisation.
Source: Rob Wallace on the political economy of pandemics | MR Online
