>We’ve moved from a “God did it” misguidance, to a “Evolution did it” misguidance.

Interesting perspective. While I've not read all his work published at the site below, it appears that his central thesis is that evolution cannot explain culture and that:

'Culture, mind and humankind can be known scientifically and this will be rooted in the discovery of underlying mechanics through the creation of an accepted theory of cultural [insert term here, but not evolution], based on the culture system itself, rather than assuming that culture is necessarily and evolutionary approach. The goal here is theory, mechanics, measurement and ultimately equation of the culture system being able to meet the inevitable challenges across social science, natural and physical sciences as such a theory would have to bridge into the natural and physical sciences too. This approach would be akin to a Newtonising of the social sciences.'

He goes on to offer:

'I’d like to propose a parallel for evolutionary theory of Universal Darwinism (UD). This is a statement of hope, with no correlating scientific rigour and accepted theory that “Evolution did it in all fields of knowledge, physical, natural and social sciences. This can vary from misguidance to pure dogma. Couched in evolutionary sounding terms it can have a veneer of scientific language but from the perspective of top table general theory, some aspects of Universal Darwinism are pure pseudo-science and more expressions of faith than fact.'

https://www.academia.edu/80106895/Why_evolutionary_theory_can_never_account_for_humankind

So at the risk of greatly oversimplifying his ideas, it seems he is suggesting that he accepts neither a Darwinian nor an Intelligent Design basis, but is also not yet in a position to put forth an alternative.

The most cohesive thought I found which might distill his thesis is:

'Humans are different but not detached from the natural world. It’s important to note that now and throughout this and other chapters. There is at times an often over reluctance to acknowledge the dimension level of human difference (cultural expression) from plants and animals (natural evolution) from a range of scientists and theorists, but not from this one. Or the world of social science, arts and humanities, an entire epistemological spectrum that specialises in a single species: humankind. While there is nothing artificial in the nature setting, almost everything that makes up the social world of humankind is artificial, including artefacts, art, articles, articulation, artists and artisans. Our single species has almost 7,000 languages and even more cultures. The central contention of this chapter is that the biological taxonomy is inadequate in classifying humankind and we require a cultural taxonomy to accurately reflect what it is that defines being human.'

https://www.academia.edu/9459147/Its_Time_Unifying_Social_Science_and_What_It_Means_to_be_Human

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html