The slug fest between creationists and neo-Darwinists is a wonder to behold, complete with name calling and ignorance aplenty (http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Treatment-Evolution-Begins-Definition/forum/FxZ58KVEERYS5E/TxZ3SMZJCF16UR/1/ref=cm_cd_dp_rt_tft_tp/002-1053518-3647210?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdAnchor=0595392458). It seems that some creationists might accede to “micro-evolution,” but not to “macro-evolution,” while neo-Darwinists seem unsure on where to draw the line. Of course, there is absolutely no dichotomy to be had in evolution. Evolution involves the motion of all things with respect to all other things. As I explained in "The Scientific Worldview," the universal mechanism of evolution is univironmental determinism (UD), the proposition that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. Nevertheless, I can sympathize a bit with the creationists. The presently accepted mechanism of evolution is "neo-Darwinism" (natural selection plus genetics). So in conventional thinking there indeed is a dichotomy: between the biological world and the rest of the universe. Once we remove this distinction by replacing neo-Darwinism with UD, the dichotomy disappears. This already has been done to some extent in the study of biopoesis (the origin of life from inorganic chemicals), which is a well-established theory whose efficacy is seldom debated by any scientist who has studied it in any detail. Countless scientists have stretched neo-Darwinism even further outside its bailiwick with the vague feeling that evolution is universally applicable. Neo-Darwinism, however, is only a special case of UD, and not an especially good one at that. As I showed in the book, it is gloriously incomplete—the biological microcosm consists of much more than just genes. We need to scrap neo-Darwinism as obsolete. UD removes the last vestige of the dichotomy hoped for by the rear-guard in the creationist camp. Only then can evolution assume its rightful place as the guiding paradigm of all science.
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20070629
The Fundamental Political Question
Many folks seem to assume that we might get to freely choose between capitalism and socialism. This is unlikely. Instead, there is only one enduring political question that needs to be answered at any point in history: Should we do it together or do it apart? The "it" here is any human action whatsoever. The only way to answer the question is to experiment with the real world. There can be no pure individualism or pure capitalism, just as there can be no pure collectivism or pure socialism. As social beings, we operate with the reality defined by the environment that is presented to us at any moment. As the world changes, democracy allows us to evaluate and experiment with the solutions proposed by the left and the right. Solutions that fail the test are discarded; those that succeed are kept for a while. Dictatorships of the left or right invariably fail the test on a grand scale. On the other hand, growing populations invariably require solutions increasingly answered as: "let's do it together." Thus, even the most capitalistic of nations must adopt all manner of "socialistic" reforms to accommodate the increased social interaction produced by the Industrial Revolution. The corresponding Global Demographic Transition, centered on the year 1989, marks the half-way point in our maturation as a social species. Our social interconnections only can accelerate as a result. From a scientific point of view, this is neither "good" nor "bad." It just is. We simply will have to learn to get the most from it.