[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, I don't understand why you don't like Darwin. It's true that his
science wasn't as advanced as commonly believed. For example, Darwin
believed that if giraffe ancestors had to frequently stretch their necks to
get to the acacia leaves, their descendants would evolve longer necks to
meet the need. We now know this proposed mechanism to be false. The
underlying fact of evolution yet remains.
Let me say I am glad for the uncensored opportunity to have made a statement
about this 'eonic effect'. As to the question of Darwin, everything I said
will be disregarded because I criticize Darwin. I speak from hard experience
here, not to this case. I direct this to a general situation that has
resulted from my experience of instant silence and/or ad hominem that greets
the Darwin critic, rarely serious discussion. The result is that anyone who
wishes to do anything has to keep mum, distort their argument, or plain lie.
That has gone on too long.
I find this a bit hopeless at this point. It is not true, false, that Darwin
produced a theory of evolution. If a century of rocket scientists maintain
the illusion otherwise, then we have a problem, and the next version upgrade
of postmodernism is going to burn the voltaire wig in effigy. Trust, basic
trust, in scientific veracity is eroding. I find that alarming.
And it is time for the secular social sciences to figure it out and not
preempt those who see the need to reexamine basic assumptions. I wa reading
old Jacques Barzun's (Barzun!) piece on Darwin in "Darwin, Marx, Wagener".
It is an echo of how many originally took Darwin. This doesn't work, as a
theory, mixing the genuine achievements of the factual basis of evolution. It
is an elegant essay, and might help for a good debrief of the subject.
It is a prime case of social ideology, and the left missed it, as Darwinism
suddenly looked attractive to the Second Internationale world. It is going to
be still another embarrassing legacy. People will end by complaining, why
didn't you warn us, etc..... Students of ideology! Fiddledeedeed, etc...
The question has lost the basis of rationality, as Barzun noted. Efforts or
declarations of counterevidence are generally futile. People just go limp,
heretic.
It is always 'hit and run'. The critic ceases to exist. No counterargument
is to be considered, and the facade is maintained.
Anyway, enough. As the third little pig said (or quoth, I can't remember),
"Build ye not houses of theoretical straw". You guys will end up in my little
(theoretical) house of brick, the 'eonic perspective on hstory'. I am
working on an eonic Marxism, and that's no joke. The current state of leftist
theory is well described by the effect of a toaster on a slice of bread.
This eonic methodology contains a very simple and useful thesis, whatever its
apparent (??) 'alternative extravagance' as you put it, not the case.
Anyway, I don't wish to be dogmatic in reverse, for defending evolution is
fine by my eonic perspective, but the propping up of Darwin's theory via
media control won't help in the end. It's over when it's over. It was always
that way, as the author of Darwinian myths notes. Darwin and his gang were
one of the first cases of publicity manipulation to fix public opinion.
Whatever our opinions here, it is true that noone is under any evidentiary
obligation to take natural selection as established. That's the bottom line.
Anyway thanks. I hope to post some further occasional stuff on the eonic
effect and economic history, perhaps. Using the eonic effect to answer such
questions is not as such my business, for this methodology is not a method to
give glib answers to any and all questions, but a demonstration of a new
foundation for a study of history and evolution.
Let me know if you would like an e-text, since you have judged me on the
basis of a quick paragraph on capitalism
Thanks a lot.
John Landon
author
World History and the Eonic Effect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://eonix.8m.com
