Debriefing Darwinism: 
The Hurricane Argument

World History 
And The Eonic Effect
Civilization, Darwinism, and Theories of Evolution
2nd. Edition
The Book
By  John Landon

Home

 2. Mysterious Drumbeat 
      2.1 The Eonic Effect
              2.1.1 The Axial Age 
              2.1.2 An Unexpected Challenge to Darwinism   
              2.1.3 Purposive Evolution 
              2.1.4 The Evolution of Morality—At Close Range 
       2.2 The Great Explosion 
              2.2.1 A Photo Finish Test   
              2.2.2 Debriefing Darwinism: The Hurricane Argument   
              2.2.3 Beyond Natural Selection 
       2.3 History and Evolution: The Great Transition 
              2.3.1 Freedom, Necessity, and Self-consciousness 
              2.3.2 Darwin, Wallace and the Shiva Seal  
              2.3.3 Non-genetic Evolution 
       2.4 Man Makes Himself 
              2.4.1 ‘Eonic determination’ and ‘free action’  
              2.4.2 Evolution, Freedom, and Volition 

Endnotes  
       2.5 Huxley and Social Darwinism   
              2.5.1 Ideology and Theory: The Oedipus Effect   
              2.5.2 Theories and ‘Action Scripts’  
              2.5.3 Art, Evolution and The Tragic Genre  

 The Darwin debate tends to paralyze critics because every criticism is the object of immense counter-attacking literature that disguises the obvious. It doesn’t follow the rules. But we will follow the rules, no evidence, no theory. The question is simple, the data given in evidence is insufficient, so we should beware of dogmatic claims. Where did Darwin go wrong? Our hurricane argument shows us the problem and gives us a bulletproof defense.

If it is true that high speed evolution occurs at short intervals, and we now see that this is not only possible, but visible in history, then Darwin’s claims about a universal process explaining everything over long periods of time is speculation.

The hurricane argument Consider a hurricane, a very brief event by comparison, as a global ‘system evolution’ on the surface of a planet. We know a hurricane when we see one, but its dynamics, mechanism, and full progression require incremental ‘closing’ on degrees of evidence and observation, a task not fully accomplished until the advent of satellites able to map global coordinates. In the same way we know evolution when we see it, roughly speaking given the fossil evidence, but its dynamics, mechanism and full progression require incremental ‘closing’ on degrees of evidence and observation, a task not fully accomplished. Note the analogy suggests global positioning satellites over the entire planet over millions of years, to observe drifting species and their changes. Suppose an observer in outer space only had loosely sampled data on pre-Neolithic man, and post-twentieth century man, and then conjectured that some mutation caused this dramatic change. We could see that low evidence-density had misled him completely.

This analogy shows at once where Darwinism departs from scientific practice. Historians routinely assume they must close on the facts in such a fashion, yet Darwinists wish to claim exemption. We have no fully observed datasets in Darwinian deep time, although there is a great deal that satisfies a generalized ‘non-random’ patterning. We cannot generalize our empirical argument. We can agree that this is a difficult area, about which speculation is less than useful, but the persistent problems here arise from the inability to closely track evolution in practice. It is an insidious trap. The study of the eonic effect can help.

It is important therefore to grasp that no one is under any evidentiary obligation to take Darwinian selectionism as established scientifically, surprising as some may find that. We put it that way because we can’t refute Darwinists in their provocative claims that routinely ignore the basic objection. The question is very simple: were there any witnesses to the facts claimed? No. We are done. Noone knows if we are missing centuries-level data of the kind now visible in history. Probably we will never know. The data suggested by the eonic effect is excruciatingly difficult to analyze, yet obvious by indirect detection using periodization that makes an accounting of ‘evolution in action’. The books don’t balance unless we assume some ‘macro’ factor.