Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00129)

I note the discussions of evolution, and thought to call your attention to my 
site on evolution, which might be of interest to those who, to use 
Blavatsky's phrase, are wondering about 'Madame Blavatsky's Baboon', and the 
challenge of Theosophy to Darwinism. 

Evolution, The Archaic Phase, 1859-2001
History, Evolution,
and the Crisis of Darwinism
Beyond the Intelligent Design Quagmire
Website on eonic effect
http://eonix.8m.com

At a time when theories of evolution are undergoing renewed controversy in 
the inexorable cycles of the Darwin debate now beset with the near farce over 
intelligent design, discussion remains forever hampered by the remoteness of 
the phenomenon of evolution, and the use of indirect inference to speculate 
about something that has never been observed. Adherents of Darwinism 
stubbornly defend textbook versions of the theory almost to the amusement of 
their religious opponents. Where did Darwin go wrong? Is ID the answer? 
The perennial assumption that Darwin's theory, or the Neo-Darwinian 
synthesis, fully accounts for the facts of evolution persists in spite of 
multiple repeated challenges to its inherent and confusing limitations.The 
secular public is under no obligation to close ranks in this ideological 
paradigm posture, and needs a commonsense stance that can focus attention on 
a practical understanding of evolution and history that is less vulnerable to 
the new hybrids with their agendas visible in the ID movement. 

The greatest confusion generated here has been over the enigma of the descent 
of man and the inability of Darwin's theory to demonstrate any closely 
tracked account of man's emergence into history. The study of historical 
evolution can break the deadlock by looking at world history in the light of 
'evolution' in a photo-finish transition to history. We live in the first 
generations in history with sufficient perspective and archaeological data to 
see how man's cultural emergence might have come about. Darwinism is not 
equipped for the job of this kind of inquiry. Persistence in thinking so is 
simply driving the public to adopt different perspectives, as with the ID 
debate. We can use the factual basis of history to consider what we do and do 
not know, to find the real meaning of evolution and in the process reorient 
our thinking about inaccurate and speculative Darwinian accounts. 

John Landon
http://eonix.8m.com
Website on history and evolution
with Online text for
World History and the Eonic Effect
and extensive materials
for a new perspective on evolution. 
Additional materials on Axial Age. 
Theoretical Self-Defense toolkit
for debriefing Darwinism misapplied to history.
No purchase required. 
http://eonix.8m.com
nemonemini@eonix.8m.com 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]