Evolution and atheism: discussion at academia.edu

https://www.academia.edu/s/80d4542dac?source=link

Further comments: John Landon

Your beliefs here are nonsense. Evolution is not a genetic or biochemical process. Natural selection might be real enough but it cannot create a new species, OK. It is statistically implausible and absurd to think it drives evolution and incomprehensible the scientific community is stuck here. Evolution, let me repeat is not a chemical process subject to chance. Check out my Decoding World History (at my site) and download a copy. Evolution is an immense complex process at a planetary level that must manage species over millions of year. Natural selection could never produce that. Period

John Landon

John Coburn’s argument is a good one, and the dilemma over natural selection or theism is false. Evolution is confusing because it is not easy amenable to science, like psychology or sociology, or history, where no real science exists. Evolution has never been observed properly in deep time, so how can we assert anything? There is not a shred of proof that natural selection can’t generate a new species. None! We see natural selection at the level of RNA, and this causes change, but it isn’t the same ‘evolution’ as that on a macro level of whole species. Evolution, I suspect, but don’t know as such, is a cosmological process that can operate with hypercomplexity over a field of species organisms, something we can barely imagine, and perhaps a reason creationists linger in the discussion. But the design argument proves nothing. Design is a fact of nature with no theological implications.
———

My comment: The issue isn’t really atheism, one way or the other. It is the theory of natural selection. Beyond any theological issue, that theory is false and Darwinism collapses. Some think, e.g. the Intelligent Design Group, that theism is indicated by the presence of design. But is that true? The design argument is no such thing. A theory of evolution that shows design has no real theistic implications. It is a Kantian issue that is undecidable. The attempt by Dawkins to use the theory to promote atheism is a complete fallacy. Cf. the author’s Decoding World History and Descent of Man Revisited: free downloads at https://redfortyeight.com. It is not atheism to exclude theistic designs on evolutionary theory. A secularist can consider design in nature without theological implications.
————
The issue always short-circuits because those who propose ‘design’ or ‘intelligent design’ always imply (Christian) monotheism by implication. But if you propose ‘intelligent’ design in the universe, then what? The theology of monotheism has no basis in any kind of proof or definition of ‘god’.
Consider the parallel version of Hegel versus Marx. Hegel is an extravagant design thinker, but Marx’s historical materialism is equally extravagant.
You hit a stone wall of mystery. Noone has ever gained an inch of ground here. The realm of Kant lurks like a vulture on its perch eyeing the antinomial brawls.

 Why the fact of evolution stands out while the ‘theories’ always fail

One can only recommend the eonic model of the eonic effect to get a right perspective on evolution. The text of Decoding WH is free. Read it and exit from the endless futility of the Darwin debate. This is not ‘still another theory’ but is does venture to claim a glimpse of evolution based on the almost infinitesimal fragment in world history called the eonic effect: a clear smoking gun for something ‘non-random’ in world history, an indirect sign of some kind of dynamic.
But that much takes reading a thousand books on world history and its locales.
The question of evolution in deep time suddenly comes into intelligible view as being so utterly vast in scale that no form of science so far known can produce a theory. As a guess, we suspect that cosmology and fine-tuning arguments have some relevance, but then who knows.
What are we talking about? ‘Evolution’ in deep time is a ‘machine’ operating over billions of years, on the surface of a planet, able to either synthesize or stage the generation of, species formats themselves collating species/organismic formats, track the course of these outcomes and, remembering its previous, action, reenter the given field to remorph as relative transformation its prior output. Evolution’s scale is that of a kind of factory or laboratory floating in air in a kind of ‘field’ of some kind, and whose action is mysterious: it seems not at all a kind of ‘creationist’ process that produces a preplanned result but an experimental interaction with earth environments according to higher teleologies perhaps vague as their exact outcomes, viz. ‘Life’ versus ‘Life forms’.
All the heretical notions come back in for consideration, as the stupendous operation seems to be teleological and to envision future outcomes, e.g. the creature with mind, for example.
(we considered the idea of hyparxis, a sort of new-age spooky physics version of entanglement where the analog to wring a novel and its hyparchic drafts might reflect the two-level operation, teleology and the specifics of environmental interaction),
What we have pointed to here is very far indeed from any theory. So why not abjure theories for the time being and consider the empirical immensity of the ‘archaeology’ of deep time. We have always being doing that all along, distracted by the fantasy of theories.

Update: Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx The ID group complains of censorship. But they are hoist on their own petard. After twenty years they still haven’t discussed the issue of design in …

Source: The ID Deception and the ‘atheist’ advantage in design arguments//Decoding World History and the correct approach to design in history – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Sad but true: modern culture secular or religious is too corrupt to resolve the evolution issue. An entry for Ripley’s Believe it or not…

We have critiqued the ID gang, but the scientific world is almost incredibly confused or else deceptive on the question of evolution. The whole shebang, believe it or not, of credentialed scientists has been brainwashed by a theory of evolution that can be exposed in one line, as did Hoyle.

Source: Edit Post ‹ 1848+: The End(s) of History — WordPress.com

The ID Deception and the ‘atheist’ advantage in design arguments//Decoding World History and the correct approach to design in history

Update: Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx

The ID group complains of censorship. But they are hoist on their own petard. After twenty years they still haven’t discussed the issue of design in history: the eonic effect and its interpretation.

The ID gambit is a sneak attack on god thinking but it can’t work because it can’t mix two modes: demonstration as science and faith as religion. You can’t produce much of an ID argument is you are also committed to taking ‘god’  as ‘faith’.

—————-
We have discussed Barzun here many times, but here we see the discotuters are trying to absorb him into their propaganda, as they did with Wallace.
Barzun is one of the best critics of Darwin, in an unexpected time and place. Barzun has no connection to Meyer with his current ‘god’ campaign.

The ID critics have produced a lot of useful work exposing Darwinism but then the ID angle confuses the issue with an uncritical equation with theology.

Let’s be clear: you cannot use the ID argument if you combine evolution reasoning with Biblical history. The Old Testament seems a prime example of
intelligent design, the problem is that it is not history but myth.

The issue of ‘intelligent’ design is hopelessly confused. So what if evolutionary design seems intelligent? We cannot conclude anything because we have no knowledge of anything with that supposed property.
The ID people have played with fire and will end up confounded: the best approach to design, perhaps even ‘intelligent’ design, is atheism. Once the archaic god idea is flushed out the discussion poses its real mystery.
We cannot determine whether phenomena in nature that look ‘intelligent’ have any ‘personal’ aspects in any category of thought.
We have put ‘atheist’ in quotation marks because atheists are almost as confused as religious believers, but they can at least evade simplistic confusions over ‘god’ created by the deceptive ‘intelligent’ adjective designed with guile to bridge pseudo-science with biblical faith.

The discussion of ‘design’ in history is brought to a new coherence by the study of the ‘eonic effect’ and our model of history. Then we do indeed see ‘design’ in nature and yet we are not sure exactly what it points to .

Source: Recognizing the “Transformative” Impact of Barzun’s Darwin, Marx, Wagner, Eighty Years Later | Evolution News

 Scientists and paradigm control and domination

This links to Nicolas Wade’s remarkable essay on the Covid virus and he brings up an issue that we suspect is behind the rigidity of issues navigating through academic and professional circles. Clearly, we have said this before, and we aren’t the first by any means, the paradigm of Darwinism is controlled by this kind of fear in a controlled context. However the case of Darwinism is a far more orwellian instance of the group think that enforces a given paradigm. It is a puzzle even beyond this because the issue of Darwin’s natural selection is so weak that even a controlled opinion space would move openly or by stealth to undermine the absurdity of such a theory. But that has never happened in the field of evolutionary biology. The field of evolution is further complicated by its religious opponents, and has a socio-political aspect in the confusion over social Darwinism. In a further twist, a theory that should have been critiqued by leftist students of ideology was given a pass and became tragically an instrument of genocide in a Stalinist context.

Our study of the eonic effect would be rejected as speculative by historians (without reading the text of Decoding) but the book provides a surprise for such critics: the model (in our usage something not as such a theory) is purely empirical and shows a ‘non-random pattern in world history’. You can dismiss a theory, but a non-random pattern is not a falsifiable theory. Its data might be faulty or incomplete, but in fact, it is a challenge to observation and facile assumptions about random history.
The extension to evolution can indeed be called speculative, but it is important to note that Darwin’s theory is entirely speculative. No one has ever observed a species in the large evolve by natural selection. the whole game is speculative from the start and outrageously so. Often the issue of natural selection arises at the level of viruses and related micro situations, but that tells us nothing about the complexity of speciation. The behavior of Darwinists here has been outrageous. In fact the data confirming evolution of a species would be so vast as to be unmanageable.
It is a sad question because the point is coming where people will never be able to trust science. There is a simple way out here: it is easy to point to the fact of evolution, even if it is so far almost impossible to find a theory. Such a theory must be on the scale of cosmology and consider the fine-tuning controversies.

Let us note that the extension of the eonic model is very conservative: it merely shows the logical nightmare of a real theory: evolution operates over the surface of a planet, somehow directs speciation (which does indeed interact with an environment), can produce the equivalent of a flying factory or laboratory operating over a species region….The real nature of a true theory of evolution is entirely beyond our ken at this point. It is perhaps not surprising that biologists played ostrich with Darwnin’s theory but that is no excuse. People have warned over and over of the danger to science of this situation, to no avail. Finally one has to stand back and watch the Science Titanic founder and sink.

Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx

Science is supposedly a self-correcting community of experts who constantly check each other’s work. So why didn’t other virologists point out that the Andersen group’s argument was full of absurdly large holes? Perhaps because in today’s universities speech can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency.

Source: The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan? – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

 Has Darwinism destroyed trust in science?

The publication of Decoding World History triggered unexpectedly the sudden new strong interest in Descent of Man Revisited (2012) which is getting many downloads every day, several thousand in the last few months, the secular Darwin critic, the nightmare of the Darwinians who expect a regime of propaganda can’t be broken from outside, even as the ID group finds a huge audience, but mostly religious creationists. Decoding is doing well, about ten new readers a day, plus those who simply follow the website, numbering in the tens of thousands, which over time is a lot, given the zero advertising budget, cancel culture times 3: biologists, Judeo-Christians, Marxists, etc…These works are still at the point they can be ignored but times are changing and at some point soon the public will start wondering how the whole science community could have been so wrong for so long. Here figures like Dawkins with their fanatic atheism think the theory of natural selection will be a theology slayer. But that tactic doesn’t work anymore despite the fact that ID has made inroads to the Christian Right. The ID group at sites like Uncommon Descent does good work, up to the point that theology enters. They tried at one point to push back against their own tendencies but it mars what is often better science than anything in the secular Darwin camp who are more or less muzzled house dogs.
This seems to spook biologists who think that enforcing Darwinism will defend against the religious. The opposite has happened. And now even secularists use such sites disregarding the theological mice that scamper across the site.
We have suggested using the term ‘design (in nature)’ without the predicate ‘intelligent’ since the claim that a certain level we find ‘mind’ in nature suffers a lack of real proof. The ID champion Dembski promotes something called the ‘design inference’ but it seems unclear. Design in nature seems indeed ‘intelligent’, sometimes, but there is a ‘feeling about something’ and then there is real proof. But they may be right. Spinoza, Hegel, after all believed in intelligent design, considered to be in the secular sphere.  Ditto for ol’ Isaac Newton, no less. So the ID group might be right, but then they have undermined their own stance: the ID factor is inside nature. So what sort of somewho designs animal forms inside nature. The ID group stranded themselves inside nature though some might claim they can extend the argument to a supernatural divinity. Nope.
A key resource here is Kant whose so-called antinomies are a challenge to theists and atheists both. Furthermore, if you find design nature you cannot include the saga of the Old Testament and combine that with science.
The ID group is attacked but they have performed a service in critiquing Darwin even as they unwittingly sabotage their own biblical theology. To find (intelligent) design in nature is thus a new brand beyond theism, a sort of crypto paganism, Scandal. Three cheers for the Gaian earth goddess.

To see a discussion of design in nature one can recommend Decoding World History and/or Descent of Man Revisited. Decoding WH especially highlights the factor of design in history, ‘intelligent’ in quotation marks, it seems, but without the idea of ‘god in history’ which was a fallacy from the start. The remarkable account in the Old Testament of the emergence of monotheism is really a kind of ‘cargo cult’ discovering the eonic effect.
Strangely the Israelites warned against using the term Yahweh, instead enjoined IHVH. What the original vision was is lost to us.
To see the point here note that in terms of the eonic effect atheist Buddhism emerges in exact synchrony with theistic Israelitism. So we are left with a mystery, what factor in nature stands beyond theism and atheism?
The Darwinist biologists have forced the issue: you can’t trust that science isn’t just propaganda. But as we have noted many times the term science applies to the hard sciences, and ‘evolutionary theory’ is the cutoff: The type of the hard sciences doesn’t apply, as far as we know.
So now we know: scientists indulge in propaganda, conceal it using the science of propaganda, and get a pat on the back from capitalist, nice job, survival of the fittest, competition, hey guys, its science.

Source: Descent of Man Revisited World History: The Hidden Clue to Human Evolution  – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Hyparxis, new agism, and a future left…//A developing discussion – The Gurdjieff Con

I have a long discussion of hyparxis at the Gurdjieff Con prefaced by this personal, almost incoherent, account of travels through the New Age movement. Leftist historical materialists will find this so appalling they might just ‘wig out’ in a dead faint. But if the left has to somehow mediate the cultural streams of the past, the new age movement becomes a research topic and a very difficult one. And dangerous. Behind the love beads and mantras stands a core of mostly hidden superreactionaries. You cannot fail to know your enemy here. These superreactionaries will eat marxists for breakfast (haha, a historical materialist). These people lurk behind the new right’s fascism in a direct connection so muddled it seems at first harmless. But the connection of figures like Bannon to Ouspensky are there.
Bennett is a sad figure: his original work is cluttered with mystical bum steers but he points to a way the left could accelerate into a viewpoint on yogas, paths, materialism of the Samkhya type. The left has to confront Christianity (Islam), Hinduism, Buddhism, and much else. Perhaps it is essential to ditch marxism and start over. Marx is confusing here: historical materialism struck a blow for secular humanism, but then tended to reduce Marxists into flatlanders. And then the ominous latent strain of Stalinism enters, and there is a serious risk to new agers of downright liquidation.
The left could construct a kind of lingua franca of cultural interaction entering socialism around the ideas of Samkhya yoga, its atheist materialism, and dialectic and strange connection to Christian theology.
We have to leave the junk new agism stuck in the past but the core of human exploration can’t be deleted in a degenerate socialism of leftist robots.

The idea of hyparxis is one of the few original ideas applied to evolutionary theories. I may have misunderstood it, and find it short of science, but its basic idea suggests that (pace Bennett) evolution mediates time and eternity (pure from, like ideal mathematical Ideas) as hyparxis. A man writing a novel mediates the ‘eternal’ dimension as the idea of a novel and its envisioned plot in a series of drafts and revisions, hyparxis, as the form of species emerges into environments that test that realization. It is a prodigiously ambitious attempt to storm the gates of glory with new approaches to evolution in the void left by the idiocy of natural selection fantasy theory.

I had an email exchange that resulted in some essays from me which I will try to reproduce as an essay. Nemonemini I am a veteran of new age movement but somewhat beyond it. I have ha…

Source: A developing discussion – The Gurdjieff Con

The idea that evolution occurs via natural selection and survival of the fittest is laughable, if not tragic, like everything else with homo ‘sapiens’, evolutionary theory is a screw up

The imposition of the Darwin paradigm is a grim reminder of the ideological hypnosis of an ambiguous era of science.
Look at the eonic effect: almost everything of value in world history is generated in the eonic effect’s evolutionary software, while the contribution of man is mostly violent mayhem and abuse of the gifts of real ‘eonic evolution’. How did the whole of science get captured by this nonsense. It is not as if there is evidence here. We don’t have a single example in deep time of a species emerging in this way. In fact we don’t have significant evidence at all. We do have strong evidence of the FACT of evolution, but a theory of how that happened eludes us. It is pity that Marx got taken in here because his first impression was exactly right: ideology. But he must have sensed what would happen if he opposed the theory.

https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/the-eonic-effect-world-history-racism-slavery-and-the-modern-transition-2/
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/the-eonic-effect-shows-at-once-the-problem-with-darwinism-2/
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/science-must-urgently-abandon-darwinism-trust-in-science-is-eroding-rapidly/

The idea that evolution occurs via natural selection and survival of the fittest is laughable, if not tragic, like everything else with homo ‘sapiens’, evolutionary theory is a screw up

The imposition of the Darwin paradigm is a grim reminder of the ideological hypnosis of an ambiguous era of science.
Look at the eonic effect: almost everything of value in world history is generated in the eonic effect’s evolutionary software, while the contribution of man is mostly violent mayhem and abuse of the gifts of real ‘eonic evolution’. How did the whole of science get captured by this nonsense. It is not as if there is evidence here. We don’t have a single example in deep time of a species emerging in this way. In fact we don’t have significant evidence at all. We do have strong evidence of the FACT of evolution, but a theory of how that happened eludes us. It is pity that Marx got taken in here because his first impression was exactly right: ideology. But he must have sensed what would happen if he opposed the theory.

https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/the-eonic-effect-world-history-racism-slavery-and-the-modern-transition-2/
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/the-eonic-effect-shows-at-once-the-problem-with-darwinism-2/
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/science-must-urgently-abandon-darwinism-trust-in-science-is-eroding-rapidly/

Asked, why did you become a Darwin critic?

The answer is simple, the subject is a lost cause: it needs an outsider, and one outside the religious right.
Years ago, I entered college and decided to major in classics, a spectacularly bad career move, tantamount
to majoring in panhandling. That was the start of the collapse of the classics field and the chances of getting a job were so low that getting a PhD was probably a waste of time. I started teaching myself mathematics and learned all the math up to quantum mechanics, sort of.
But I met some critics of Darwinism and the work of several scholars and got a suggestion. I was in a golden position: you can work outside the system. As I learned later, people with high-level Asperger’s sometimes are hyperintelligent in a narrow direction and have special talents. They spontaneously see patterns in things. “Why not since you are a permanent outsider try to figure out the problems with Darwinism and see if you can find a real theory? The professors of biology are hopelessly stupid, or else dissemblers’. I ended up taking the advice and worked on the question much later in the nineties. It took five years to resolve the eonic effect, based on a hunch from Karl Jaspers despite the flaws in his work: he cited the nineteenth-century discovery of global parallelism, but he couldn’t figure it out.
So far the problem of evolution is not soluble by science. And while the eonic effect is not a theory, so far beyond human intelligence at this point, it does detect evolution in the development of civilizations: we start by asking if world history shows any giveaway signs of an evolutionary mechanism. The idea of a mechanism as I discovered is too low-ball but too far off the mark. The key is to find a non-random pattern, and suddenly we see one and it is a real humdinger. Solving the evolution question requires science thinking, yes, but also ethical and aesthetic issues. Evolution can’t be a value-free science. The eonic effect foots the bill but we only see what it does over tends of millennia.
The mechanism behind the mechanism in not visible, like a Kantian noumenon, maybe. We may soon take the issue further but we can see that evolution is supersubtle and can compute organismic (and/or civilizational) structures on the fly, like a factory floating in thin air. The eonic effect is confusing because it acts in a (teleological?) sequence and a parallel action which seems to contradict directionality.
But suddenly the answer is obvious: the action must integrate over a planetary surface, to cover as much ground as possible, while also maintaining directionality in the long term. That and much more. A theory, then, of evolution involves a mysterious creative force that we still don’t understand. This is what confused many into thinking in creationist terms, a blind alley. The creative power, a dangerous term, is inside nature. We can see evolution in action: in historical terms the whole of civilization evolves in a complex action in sequence and parallel. The evidence is there, study it. Now the question is, what does this have to do with the evolution of organisms in deep time? The answer is that there is probably a direct connection. Consider what we are talking about: a planetary supermachine (metamechanical? whats’ that?)
operating over billions of years able to generate a directed sequence of species rising to the level of mind, and consciousness starting with animal brand then the deeper consciousness sometimes appearing in homo sapiens. Because evolution evolves culture next to bodies we should consider that the evolution of man and that of civilization are connected. Early evolution of organisms is evolving consciousness, animal awareness. But later in world history the ‘eonic’ evolution is also evolving consciousness, high octane brand. I really doubt the two are no connected. There you have it.The evolution of consciousness is supertricky concept, and we are in danger of confusion: we can’t observe that over thousands of years. So we can approach the with careful empirical, if possible. Darwinists will do everything they can to suppress this. They dare not critique it in public. Confusion as Darwinism has gone on so long that if they change now the whole trust in science will collapse. A special kind of idiot with a special kind of screwup, one with a long casualties

The only thinker who got anywhere close to the answer is Henri Bergson: his idea of creative evolution is remarkable. But I don’t use it because it
doesn’t connect with the facts that we now see. And the ‘new versions’ are equally a problem. We also see what no one could resolve the question. The number of books you have to read is humongous, an almost impossible task. Creative evolution as a terms doesn’t appear in the eonic model, but it points to the really difficult problem of creative innovation? Look at all the innovations of the Greek Archaic. Were they are syste, generated by a creative force. The latter term should be dropped perhaps as we look at simple correlations.
I used to run up and down the stairs of the Columbia library stacks with its umpteen million books. You are lucky if you can read a 1000 in five years, browsing thousands more, what of ten million minus a thousand? The point is totally obvious: we can’t visualize historical sequences and we always specialize. But specialization won’t work You must despecialize. The eonic effect requires careful study of Chinese, Indic,
Mesopotamian, Israelite, Zoroastrian, Greek/Roman histories, plus the Neolithic (Paleolithic, evolution of man), plus modernity, plus all the exterior histories taking world history as a single unit. 1000 books isn’t enough, but carefully balanced it is a start.

Look at modernity, the modern transition: you must study about a hundred subjects out of a thousand plus: Reformation, rise of science, revolutions and the birth of democracy, the emergence of ‘classical’ music, the history of fine art, political texts, religious texts, etc….

So we have no way to see ‘evolution’: consider the evolution of one species: Darwinian biologists claim this happens via natural selection. Where’s the proof? Noone, and certainly not biologists, has ever seen a major species evolve. That’s like a three dimensional film covering millions of years. The evolution of biochemical whatnot doesn’t count. It is not a biochemical problem at the high level. Science demands data
and evolutionary biology has almost no data. Just enough to detect evolution but not enough to see the mechanism, in each case operating over millions of years. The Darwinian presumption to have solved this is completely lunatic nonsense. I fear we are in the zone of hopeless idiots, with PhD’s. My old  friend was right, and that was sixty years ago.

The hold of Darwinism is strange and almost frightening. Fred Hoyle pointed to the absurdity of the basic tenet of Darwinism. To no avail.

Meanwhile not getting a PhD in classics was in the end a stroke of luck. You can to roam country, ride freight trains, etc…

etc…more anon…?