376
M. Svrˇ cek
Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the
Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason.”
Most biologists believing that Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory do not
know that it originated in occultism in the disguise of a scientific theory. Applications
of occultism, without a firm scientific background, are of course vulnerable to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of all kinds. There was no quantum physics
at the time of Darwin, to e.g. vindicate random mutations, and even if Darwin was
right with his teleological interpretation of the process of adaptation, the problem of
teleology has not been resolved to this day. One might study how the central characters of Darwinian evolution, such as Mayr or Madrell, see Sect. 7, have advanced
the meaning of teleology, not in full accord with Darwin. The same applies to protagonists of quantum decoherence who attempt to replace the causal Born rule by a
teleological einselection rule. They were all inspired with Universal Darwinism, but
they must also realize that animate nature obeys the laws of inanimate nature and not
conversely. It means that the Darwinian adaptation process must be first revealed in
inanimate nature with the possibility of a consequent application to living organisms.
Philosophers like Popper regarded Darwinism as a tautology. Popper changed
his mind after he had noticed similar patterns, see Sect. 8, in the two-stage model,
applicable both to biology and the psychology of free will. Maybe such arguments
are convincing for philosophers, but not for physicists, since the latter will always
look for primary patterns in inanimate nature. We have nevertheless shown that
microscopic quantum physics and megascopic quantum chemistry form together the
same two-stage model as was applied to biology and psychology by Eccles and
Popper.
Note that once we have incorporated teleology into megascopic quantum chemistry, the Darwinian adaptation process becomes identical to megascopic quantum jumps that represent transitions between different symmetry broken states, i.e.
between different Platonic Forms, see Sect. 13. This view is synoptic with the prevailing view of Western biologists and philosophers until the 19th century, i.e. that the
differences between individuals of a species are uninteresting departures from their
Platonic idealism of created kinds. In this way the true Darwinian evolution can be
applicable only to questions like why we have so many races of cats and dogs, but the
cat will be forever a cat and the dog will be a dog. Darwin himself was aware of the
problem of missing transitional forms [162]: “Why, if species have descended from
other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable
transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as
we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms
must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the
crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum
full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection
which can be urged against my theory.”
A few decades later Darwin was brainwashed by the illusory “success” of his own
theory when he said [163]: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by
centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
M. Svrˇ cek
Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the
Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason.”
Most biologists believing that Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory do not
know that it originated in occultism in the disguise of a scientific theory. Applications
of occultism, without a firm scientific background, are of course vulnerable to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of all kinds. There was no quantum physics
at the time of Darwin, to e.g. vindicate random mutations, and even if Darwin was
right with his teleological interpretation of the process of adaptation, the problem of
teleology has not been resolved to this day. One might study how the central characters of Darwinian evolution, such as Mayr or Madrell, see Sect. 7, have advanced
the meaning of teleology, not in full accord with Darwin. The same applies to protagonists of quantum decoherence who attempt to replace the causal Born rule by a
teleological einselection rule. They were all inspired with Universal Darwinism, but
they must also realize that animate nature obeys the laws of inanimate nature and not
conversely. It means that the Darwinian adaptation process must be first revealed in
inanimate nature with the possibility of a consequent application to living organisms.
Philosophers like Popper regarded Darwinism as a tautology. Popper changed
his mind after he had noticed similar patterns, see Sect. 8, in the two-stage model,
applicable both to biology and the psychology of free will. Maybe such arguments
are convincing for philosophers, but not for physicists, since the latter will always
look for primary patterns in inanimate nature. We have nevertheless shown that
microscopic quantum physics and megascopic quantum chemistry form together the
same two-stage model as was applied to biology and psychology by Eccles and
Popper.
Note that once we have incorporated teleology into megascopic quantum chemistry, the Darwinian adaptation process becomes identical to megascopic quantum jumps that represent transitions between different symmetry broken states, i.e.
between different Platonic Forms, see Sect. 13. This view is synoptic with the prevailing view of Western biologists and philosophers until the 19th century, i.e. that the
differences between individuals of a species are uninteresting departures from their
Platonic idealism of created kinds. In this way the true Darwinian evolution can be
applicable only to questions like why we have so many races of cats and dogs, but the
cat will be forever a cat and the dog will be a dog. Darwin himself was aware of the
problem of missing transitional forms [162]: “Why, if species have descended from
other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable
transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as
we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms
must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the
crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum
full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection
which can be urged against my theory.”
A few decades later Darwin was brainwashed by the illusory “success” of his own
theory when he said [163]: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by
centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,