Bourgeois Science-How about Darwinism?

Nemonemini at Nemonemini at
Sun Dec 2 17:44:50 MST 2001

In a message dated 12/2/2001 2:39:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sherrynstan at writes:

          Perhaps David Price's notion that evolution is aimed at
     redressing the energy "imbalance" on earth, and that we humans are the
     last step in the process, which explains why we are burning up two
     billion years worth of counter-entropy in 150 years.  Is that
     macroevolutionary?  Is it directional?

Resolving issues of thermodynamics is the toughest question. The second law
debates tend to get scrambled by bad physics. We have the work of Prignone and
Kauffman, but beyond that we are stuck with the fact that, whatever the answer
to second law issues, we find ourselves the result of an evolution that deals in
values, meanings, consciousness.
Something is missing in the derivations of reductionism. My line of approach
starts simply with the facts of civilization, and I adopt a stance of 'relative
evolution'. If we see three steps, and the first appears to be, say, the fourth
in a long sequence, the rest of which we don't see, then we can deal with what
we have, starting with step four. You can find a complete model of that type
applied to civilizational 'evolution' at my,
and the subsequent ../outline1.htm,  etc...
It is a strange approach, but Darwinism all to obviously is forced to pick only
those theories compatible with reductionism as we know it. And the result simply
factors out values, meanings, and consciousness. You simply can't claim that all
these things simply appeared as adaptations in deep time without some hard
proof. You can't, but Darwinists do, and become indignant when this absurdity is
challenged. It ought to be a simple issue, noone was there, so where's the
proof. But this theory is so nutty noone seems to be able to snap out of it. One
ends up a voice crying in the wilderness. There is a strange factor of surface
complexity in the style of communication. We assume that people who write
complex technical books couldn't make such an elementary blunder so consistently
and for so long. But they do, so possibly its hopeless.
This is not cavalier. Science demands evidence.  We assume that what we are
given is true evidence. But it is not really so. A drastic ''what if' pervades
the subject. What if, between two fossil bones, whose implication certainly is
evolution, some highspeed short acting evolutionary process occurred, to drive
evolution? What if? We simply assume this is not the case. But, as my type of
study shows, such things are clearly evident in history, by inference. That
means we should suspect highspeed short acting processes in similar contexts of
the descent of man. But we have no such evidence, at the level of centuries. So
the most we can say is that we suspect evolution, with fair confidence, but we
don't know how this evolution works. That, with grim finality is that.
You might find the 'hurricane argument' useful, at my
The gist of that is that we can see a hurricane, if we are near one, but to say
how it works requires complex observations with field stations, and satellite
tracking over the duration of the phenomenon. A similar requirement, in
principle, is required for evolution, as impossible, I admit, as that would be,
especially since it is in the past. But the point is that we didn't get lucky
with Darwin's theory. The truth of the matter, we suspect, is something much
much more complex.
Part of the problem is that demands for close tracking evidence cause defenders
to change the subject or produce examples where random variation and natural
selection just might work. But that proves nothing. The rise of ethical man, or
consciousness, via natural selection has not been observed at close range in the
relevant intervals.
And with an eye on my 'eonic effect' we suspect these early incidents had a
different character altogether.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list