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

 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