Descent Of Man Revisited

Book Blog

Descent Of Man Revisited header image 2

WHEE links

February 22nd, 2013 · No Comments

This post, growing each day, has been very popular, but it is time to start over…. Reposted here …

Finding evolution in world history is confusing at first, but only because the Darwinian view is so misleading

Defining ‘Evolution’
The use of the term ‘evolution’ in world history will be a stumbling block for some, even as they accept its ‘Social Darwinist’ usage in that context. We will settle the question, ‘by definition’: the word comes from ‘evolvere’, ‘rolling out’, and is appropriate for evidence of developmental sequences, whether in deep time, or in history. This definition is not inherently genetic, and the study of history will make clear that ‘evolution’ operates at a higher level than the genomic. As we move to examine world history, we discover that the non-random patterns it exhibits, as with the Axial Age, are best described as ‘evolution’, by definition. This usage then provokes a suspicion that what we find in history is also the case for the earlier ‘history’, i.e. evolutionary emergence, of man as homo sapiens. And the evidence for a ‘great explosion’ at the dawn of human speciation is tantalizing. We need not jump to any conclusion, but we must demand that Darwinian assumptions be withdrawn: they are speculative, and less plausible.
Our usage will also seem to impinge on ‘design’ arguments, and will collide with theistic interpretations of the Old Testament. This usage is completely open-ended (in the endnotes we use the metaphor of evolution as a ‘brown paper bag’, or conceptual container). And anyone who can prove a design argument can reinterpret our data! Ay, there’s the rub.
This approach can help to decondition the ‘upside down’ Darwinian usage, which is actually NOT about evolution. We will introduce the distinction of macroevolution (with a developmental sequence and driver) from microevolution (which is what Darwinism is about). This usage is, ironically, close to that of the first and most original evolutionist, Lamarck.
Our usage will be ‘Janus-faced’, with ‘history emerging from evolution’ (like a student graduating from school) as the ‘evolution of freedom’ creates a free agent who steps beyond evolutionary passivity into historical free agency. Thus ‘evolution’ and ‘history’ overlap. Consider the visual metaphor in the endnotes.

Problems with random evolution, and
How would we detect teleology?

The perspective of Darwinism is that of random evolution, and this framework has always concealed a host of problems, however attractive the concept is for proponents of reductionist science. Random evolution
1. must skirt severe improbability, as the scientist Fred Hoyle warned,
2. overcome without a template, system memory, or feedback control the inherent tendency to peter out, deviate, or retrogress,
3. operate in partial steps to construct complex objects at random, with no direct connections between steps, in constructs with tens of thousands of parts,
4. effect infinitesimal, geographically isolated innovations into species level change over large regions or whole species.
This is but a short list. It should remind us that Darwinism is implausible from the start, and yet seems to be scientific because the fantasy of natural selection is never tested against reality and thus avoids the really difficult implications in our list of problems. At the same time, our four problems point to something that must be complex beyond our understanding. It is not surprising biologists cling to an oversimplification like natural selection that makes these difficulties vanish.
Detecting Teleology It is not hard to deduce what evolution should look like from these difficulties, which must leave their signature in the data of any given chronicle. The problem is that these issues imply something controversial: teleological sequences. What form would teleology take, and how would we recognize it?
There are very few solutions to this set of contradictions: one is that of an explicit evolutionary driver, a sort of macro process that operates intermittently over the long range, and acts on wholes via transitional areas of reasonable size. That’s a tall order. But sure enough world history will give us an example.

Clinging to oversimplification

We are left with the lingering feeling Darwinists cling to an oversimplification as a crutch near the limits of understanding. The facile over-explanatory character of the theory should make us suspicious. This situation also forces us to ask if the promotion of Darwinism is really a deception or rather the self-delusion of ideological fixation.
In fact, the question of evolution is prone to mythological thinking. The reason is that the limits of observation leave the contours of evolution elusive. The mythology of natural selection has gone on so long it must come as a shock to suspect that we don’t know what we are dealing with. Is there a way out of this dilemma? We must begin by asking who man is, and what we mean by a theory of his evolution. Then we must ask if there are any really solid observations of that evolution, at close range. This approach comes with a surprise.

Darwin the plagiarist too dumb to have discovered a theory of evolution

he Darwin Conspiracy The evidence is cogent that Darwin plagiarized the key ideas of his theory from Wallace. Darwin’s near creationism and retarded understanding of evolutionary dynamics until as late as 1855 when he began to receive a series of letters from Wallace is misunderstood by many students who see Darwin’s early use of the term ‘natural selection’—with a different meaning.
That Wallace should have changed his views, and become less sure of the place of natural selection in the evolution of man, is therefore important, since if Darwin could not alone produce a theory it is hard to see how he could alone have gone beyond one. It is thus unclear whether we should be talking about Darwinism or Wallacism.

Tags: Uncategorized