Darwinists/biologists a clueless bunch of hopeless idiots??…//Do we need a new theory of evolution? | Evolution | The Guardian

We cited this essay before here, but it is worth reposting. There are very few zones of sanity in the field of the ‘evolution’ Big Mess
Biologists are probably the most clueless gang in whole cadre of scientists. The problem from start to finish is that ‘evolution’ occurs on different levels, and real evolution in a sort of macro sense is invisible to the naked eye. That means that scientists are stuck in one half of the answer and can’t get unstuck. The result is a dogmatic blindness to their own subject matter and a form of social control as ideology that is pernicious. This situation is a threat to science itself as an untrustworthy enterprise that means to control social belief, this in the ammbiguiy of capitalist ideology and its suspicious resemblance to selectionist Darwinian, survival of the fittest thinking as both biological and economic.
Here to be sure the confusion generated by creationist assualts on Darwinism has tended to contract the field with the obsessive Darwinian mantras turned offialese by the likes of Dawkins and the atheist obsessives.
It is clear from the eonic effect that evolution is far different from expectations and that it something so supercomplex as to be beyond the wilted intelligence of indoctrinated biologists.

It is important to consider this larger view and to see that world history gives us (most probably) a glimpse of how evolution works. Albeit with the catch that history and evolution although related are different variants of a more complex and almost unfathomable mystery at best detected yet hard to reify. It is what you get if a mechanical process so conceived turns out to have a teleological aspect, something that conventional science cannot handle. It is important to free science of religious claims but at the same time to see that banishing design factors is only confusing the issue. Let’s be clear and complain of the confusion that creationists have produced but acknowledge that if ‘evolution’ gets confused by ‘god’ thinking it is because the scale of evolution is so stupendous and seemingly creative in its generation of form that red herring of intelligent design lurks as a constant suggestion. In a way, the collapse of the ‘god’ factor as conceptual morass was a long step that has taken more than a century to play itself out. Perhaps realizing how the god concept muddles an already obscure mystery is finally able to caution evolutionary oversimplification.
Take a long hard look at the eonic effect to see that ‘evolution’ in this new sense is a creative mystery with a strange directionality.
In the meantime it is is time to tell biologists, you’re fired for having sown such confusion at the expense of cultural sanity.
Further it is time to see just how much of human cultural evolution is a set of gifts of nature and the emergent civilization is one such cornucopia of natural profundity. The reductionist era has failed and the evolution question remains as intractable as ever.

The long read: A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology

Source: Do we need a new theory of evolution? | Evolution | The Guardian

New Age, histomat, meditation, evolution and consciousness

Google blurb on new age beliefs:

What are New Age beliefs?
Image result for new age movement
But many Christians also hold what are sometimes characterized as “New Age” beliefs – including belief in reincarnation, astrology, psychics and the presence of spiritual energy in physical objects like mountains or trees. Many Americans who are religiously unaffiliated also have these beliefs.Oct 1, 2018

A deeper movement lies behind the nonsense level of the so-called New Age movement; World history shows clearly a recurring trend to ‘foment’ meditation in global cultures after being in prime focus in the Indic tradition, echoed in sufistic, and in mostly distorted for in the Christian stream. Astrology for example is entirely extraneous yet a persistent entanglement for the deeper current subject to trivialization. Hatha Yoga has been especially popular but some how divorced from the key legacy tradition of viz. Raja Yoga, an ancient practice already in classical time. Behind the curious hype (often used to dismiss all ‘new age’ configurations) lies an immense cultural shift in an important descant on globalization. Human consciousness is an incomplete formation and the evolutionary injection of mediation into human evolution (in the wake of the mysterious amplification of ‘consciousness’ in first homo sapiens) requires nurture and recovery from the constant distraction away from focal consciousness…

The Marxist left with historical materialism miscalculated all such factors and creates a strong crypto-Stalinist prejudice against all such frameworks, a tragic confusion that left Bolshevism a cultural cripple.

beyond ID/Darwinism…//Jerry Coyne — An Evolutionist and His Ideology | Evolution News

As usual Evo-News has a useful account of the peppered moth debate, the most notorious of the brain-dead evolution capers. The tactics of the ID folks are to be sure themselves misleading, or else limited, and the whole debate should be more neutral with respect to religion, and even ‘intelligent design’. Here we have to consistently distinguish ‘design’ from ‘intelligent’ design on the grounds that the term ‘intelligent’ will suggest a conclusion about design that we can’t fully prove and be used to precipitate theitic inferences that are not warranted. To see the point consider how you will distinguish the term ‘intelligent’ for use with humanoid beings, theistic projections, and natural lawful constructs, and/or Israelite proto-theism versus Christian/Judaic completions. There is no such ‘word’ that applies, the the term ‘intelligent’ being semantically contradictory, and only what the letters spell, no more. And what about the difference between ‘intelligent’ and ‘superintelligent’ and ‘beyond intelligent’? And it might be helpful for the issues to be reviewed by an atheist, and/or an ‘atheist’ in quotation marks: viz. a semi-agnostic wary of ‘god references’, Continue reading “beyond ID/Darwinism…//Jerry Coyne — An Evolutionist and His Ideology | Evolution News”

Darwin and the Mathematicians: David Berlinski

We had a post on an attempt to clear von Neumann for the Paradigm with a denial he was a critic of Darwin. This short interview of Berlinski should the matter straight. Since these things tend to disappear, I quoted the article in full. https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/08/von-neumann-on.html

Darwin and the Mathematicians

David Berlinski

November 7, 2009, 7:00 AM

ENV: In the past, you’ve remarked about mathematicians and their opinions of Darwin’s theory of evolution. They were skeptical, you said; very skeptical. John Von Neumann was an example. How do you know that about him and about other mathematicians?
Deniable%20Darwin.JPG
DB: How do I know? Here’s how:
I have been close to a number of mathematicians, and friends with others: Daniel Gallin (who died before he could begin his career), M.P. Schutzenberger (my great friend), René Thom (a friend as well), Gian-Carlo Rota (another friend), Lipman Bers (who taught me complex analysis and with whom I briefly shared a hospital room, he leaving as I was coming), Paul Halmos (a colleagues in California), and Irving Segal (a friend by correspondence, embattled and distraught). Some of these men I admired very much, and all of them I liked.
I had many other friends in the international mathematical community. We exchanged views; I got around.
Among the mathematicians that I knew from very roughly 1970 to 1995, the general attitude toward Darwin’s theory was one of skepticism. These days, I do not get around all that much, and whatever the mathematician’s pulse, I do not have my finger on it. But the reactions of which I speak were hardly surprising. Until recently, mathematicians have been skeptical of any discipline beyond mathematics, and I say until recently because attitudes as well as times have changed.
In talking of the mathematician’s skepticism, I mentioned Von Neumann because his name was widely known. I might have mentioned Gian-Carlo Rota. He despised the enveloping air of worship associated with Darwin; he thought biology primitive and dishonest.
Continue reading “Darwin and the Mathematicians: David Berlinski”

A Tale of Two Frauds

Pitting Christianity against Darwinism is a tactic that won’t work even as the critiques of Darwinism are cogent enough. Christianity is an even bigger fraud that Darwinism. Christianity’s old testament is a tissue of fictions, about history, god, and creationism. The New Testment is a massive collection of fictions rendered into a theological politics based on false claims about Jesus, his life, resurrection, teachings, and the bogus promise of salvation, compared with, for example, Buddhism whose psychology is actually that unlike the myths of Christianity on man and his psychology.
The irony is that religion is itself a product in the Axial period of ‘evolution’ in the sense of the eonic effect and its ‘eonic evolution of civilization’ which probably tells us something about real evolution in deep time. These critics of Darwin rightly challenge natural selection but forever spoil their case with Christian propaganda.

The fundamental premise of evolutionary theory is that humans are the product of an undirected process that did not have us in mind.

Source: Evolution + Christianity = Intractable Tensions | Evolution News