Bourgeois Science-How about Darwinism?
nemonemini at cosmiverse.com
nemonemini at cosmiverse.com
Sun Dec 2 11:32:14 MST 2001
> In short, what I am saying is there are levels upon levels of
misconception and possible
ideological intrusions, but at the same time there is that conception
of natural history
which is a unique expression of biological history a reflection of
The question of the fact of evolution, and the naturalistic context
of evolution, is something we can accept, but the argument has always
revolved around the limitations of the natural selection idea. It
should be a simple issue, we have no direct verification in all
instances that natural selection is the sole mechanism leading to
higher complexity. I can't refute the claims made, since I have no
counterevidence to the lack of evidence. The whole theory is all too
obviously, quite apart from charges of ideology, a place filler for
naturalism. But, to me, the emphasis on naturalism is correct, but
its essence has not yet been defined. I think S. Kauffman has made
this point clear, as have any number of exobiologists, albeit
So I am suspicious, but am unable to speculate, and am under no
obligation to accept selectionist theory, regardless of what
Darwinists tell me.
The problem arises with the distinction of facts and values, as
usual. It is one thing to demand naturalistic explanation. And it is
one thing to turn back supernaturalistic explanation. But it is quite
another to claim that the emergence of values, speaking generally, is
not a part of a theory of evolution. Are values a part of evolution?
If not, where do they come from? And here the phrase, 'naturalistic
fallacy' confuses the issue. Anything about values is put out of
science. But that won't work in evolution. And the 'naturalistic
fallacy' is very real, but given a misnomer. Facts and values are
distinct, yet they blend, and they in temporal evolution. So
the 'fallacy' should be called something else.
So I don't speculate, and at the same time I don't accept the
speculations of Darwinists without close tracking proof because I
suspect, and more than suspect, that there are complex
macroevolutionary processes involved in a directional evolution we
don't see, and which probably doesn't apply to the many cases where
natural selection alone seems to be the answer. The medium of
evolution is not uniform, and thinking it must be is a methodological
mistake on Darwinists' part.
So I don't speculate, but I do have the record of history. And there
I don't need to speculate. I have facts. And there I have an ace up
my sleeve, for I can show the obvious, that we can find the 'how' of
evolution in our back yard, and while it is not supernatural, it does
show the emergentist braiding of values and factual histories. A
littel 'time and motion' periodization shows what is afoot. And it
doesn't square with Darwin. That's my eonic effect, a very simple
walkthrough demo of what is happening in history. And a confirmation
of T.H. Huxley, in a number of ways. Huxley, we forget, is not the
man we think we see at the famous debate with Wilberforce, fictional
or exaggerated myth that it is. He used to badger Darwin, are you
really sure about natural selection? It made him nervous. I think I
can show why.
We are simply missing the main event, and require new forms of
BTW, the Times has an article today about paleontological research in
Africa and early man, challenging the Creative Explosion idea of
recent decades, the ca. -40000 transition. So it goes on, the
dialectic of slow and fast evolution. I think that these issues are
confounded by the lack of evidence on both sides, and the imaginary
assumptions of both parties. Getting straight this 'creative
explosion' factor in general requires something like my 'eonic
analysis', which comes equipped with sufficient data to make sense of
the nonsense on both sides.
This message was sent by Cosmiverse.
Get Your Free Email Account Today!
Join us Today as a Digital Passenger aboard
Cosmic Voyage 2000 ( http://www.cosmicvoyage2000.com )!
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism