I'd welcome feedback on a 25-page draft of manuscript for a new book. Download a pdf here.

Point of interest 1. From the implications of us having evolved I pursue a line of logic leading to a new basis for human nature and a new dualist view of the universe. Point of interest 2. It's structured around a dozen what I refer to as "heuristics," mental devices for thinking in new directions. My goal is to reconcile us having evolved with us experiencing being conscious and having some measure of creativity. In effect this is like going back to the original discovery that we evolved and rethinking what it means from scratch. I come up with new "heuristics" in place of Darwin's--that evolution "means" living creatures becoming adapted and that a plausible mechanism driving that is natural selection. I fear I may have stepped so far outside the norm that I am no longer comprehensible--that's been reaction so far. Do you like being challenged? Here's an opportunity.

I've just discovered the website uncommondescent.com and I'm trying to figure out what to make of it. It appears to be a forum for non-creationist advocacy of intelligent design. I am of course intrigued, being a non-creationist IDer myself. But reading the definition of ID on the site made me realize what concessions I've made to avoid confrontation on the topic. In my experience, confrontation prevents discussion from taking place on any other terms than the discourse of darwinism. In effect, scientism filibusters any discussion of human origins.

Why bother fostering belief in ID? My primary motive is not to straighten out science, it's to protect the general culture from being damaged by scientism, now made respectable by appearing in the form of theories of evolution that limit the agents in our origin story to physical processes. It's not so much those theories I object to (though I do think them shockingly flawed science), it's how the scientism they promote can coarsen society at large. So I've decided to go around science and talk directly to the humanities, in terms of a discourse based on not on flaws in darwinism but in terms of ID itself. Only the humanities have the clout to speak to science on anything like equal terms. I'm working on coming up with a discourse in terms of humanities concepts that skirt confrontation with darwinism, such as consciousness and the self.

Below is the first paragraph of the site's definition of ID, and what my version would be:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

My version: I choose to account for certain features of living things in terms of an intelligent cause rather than in terms of a purely physical process such as natural selection. This doesn't constitute a challenge to other people's belief that what I think is intelligent design in living creatures is an illusion. I can develop my account of living creatures in terms of intelligent design any way I want as long as I don't claim it's science.

And here is my latest attempt to win public support for my version of the ID program while not waking up Darwin's bulldogs.

In 1838, an unmarried teenager named Victoria ascended the throne of Britain. By then, Charles Darwin was already an adult, in his late twenties. If by “Victorian” we mean the period of Victoria’s rule the exploits for which Darwin is famous—the voyage on the Beagle and his coming up with natural selection--are “Pre-Victorian.” He had no talent for mathematics or philosophy, usually thought essential for a great scientist. He is a figure from such a distant past, and so ill-prepared for the role of great scientist, why does it occur to anyone today to celebrate his birthday?

The reason is, because we celebrate not him but something in ourselves.... By celebrating Darwin’s victory we in effect choose  to turn back and celebrate his victory rather than to face forward, deal with our fears, and move on. Fears? What else could account for criticisms of Darwinism being greeted, today, with fingers-in-the-ears chants of “Creationist! Creationist!”?

I have a proposal. Let’s regard Charles Darwin, like his Grandfather Erasmus, as a pre-Victorian pioneer in evolutionary thinking, while we turn to constructing new theories that can account for what we know is true of at least some evolved creatures—us: we can be conscious, creative, and experience exercising free will. More...

Just as it's conceivable a living creature could be found that would disprove Darwinism, the same could be true if a certain living creature couldn't be found. The creature in question is the Beneficial Mutation, the existence of which was confidently predicted in the 1940s as part of the Modern Synthesis. In fact, if the Beneficial Mutation could be shown not to exist, the Modern Synthesis itself might be brought into question. Much therefore depends on this rare creature being sighted. More...

Darwin’s theory of natural selection cannot qualify as science. It’s a teaching in a system of belief known as physicalism. Basic to physicalism is the claim that only matter and physical agents can cause change in the physical universe--it denies reality to mental capabilities such as consciousness and free will. There is no scientific evidence for this claim. As merely one teaching within this system of belief, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is certainly not “a worthy symbol on which to celebrate the achievements of reason, science, and the advancement of human knowledge” as Rush Holt (NJ) wrote in the resolution H. RES. 41 he introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives.... Given the failure of science to recognize the spurious logic of darwinism, and its compliance in the scaling down of the human spirit to what an origin story based on physicalism is capable of, I suggest we choose instead to use the human spirit as our touchstone for what an adequate account of evolution must be like.

For all those reasons and more it would be an extremely serious error of judgment to make February 12 an official day of celebration of Darwinism as tribute to the majesty of science. More...

Anti-darwinism covers a multitude of opinions. To Darwinists we appear as a united militant throng of anti-darwinists, but we're actually so thinly scattered we have difficulty finding each other. I have yet to find anyone with an opinion similar to mine (except perhaps Samuel Butler). Let me re-assure you, we are not a throng (except for creationists who do tend to huddle around altars).

Anti-darwinists are not usually anti-Darwin, Charles Darwin himself being a very likeable gentleman. I'm actually part of the scientific opposition to Darwin, and what he stands for. I feel entitled--I am British, the same age as he when his thinking finally matured (73). And I have a long beard like his. I feel entitled to judge.

More accurately, I am part of the opposition to Darwin's theory of natural selection. More...

Where do you expect to find Darwinism being spoken about? At scientific meetings? In the school science classroom? How about in the nursery, along with other fairy stories? No, that would be undignified! How about in a new musical? That's better. That's the setting for a new story I've just added to the category "Contrarian Stories." See it here.

I was challenged to say what I mean in a few words. The fewest I could come up with, nine, is the heading above. Here it is a little less condensed:

I’ve a mind good enough to give up Darwinism for.

Here, expanded further:

Because Darwinists can’t account for mind evolving they say it’s merely brain; I value mind too much to accept that.

In other words:

Because quality of conscious experience is my top priority I can’t accept a chemicals-in-a-test–tube origin story like Darwinism.

More...

If the modern combination of natural selection and mutation feels just plain silly to you, as it does to me, how can you communicate that feeling effectively when everyone else seems in awe of "The Modern Synthesis"?

As a last resort, I tell a story. Someone has signed a contract with God to take over from Him as creator, using natural selection and mutation. Then they call in an evolutionist to fulfill the contract them for them. Shouldn't be hard, right? Turns out, he's not pleased! More...