In Search of Truth in the Social Imagination ~ Part II

You may never have thought of the gravity of the social imagination in terms of the weight and strength that it carries, wields and uses to shape everything man does and thinks. Yes, the gravity of the social imagination is that and much more.

You see, being a sociologist gives me a greater perspective than most other sciences especially the 'hard sciences'. They can only go by what men think they see and agree on as real even mathematically; someone always comes up with a new equation. The difference is that sociologists know this to be true (reality is what we think we see and agree on). This is what I have been saying all along when we consider what is the true social reality.

How is the gravity of the social imagination connected with the idea of the electric universe?  It is connected only in this way... for some what is real is not real for others; but, that is exactly how quantum physics started out or the view that the earth revolves around the sun. As soon as enough scientists agree, after writing their papers on it (getting their foot hold on it), the electric universe will be the new standard model and not the old traditional in the social imagination.  

This is how the gravity of the social imagination affects social reality and what is really real! You see, once something is agreed upon, we essentially collapse a wave function; and, that's the new real. This is the work of the gravity of the social imagination. The electric universe model now rubs against the Standard model of the universe.

The Standard Model of the universe is the standard model of particle physics is the theory describing three of the four known fundamental forces in the universe (the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions), as well as classifying all known elementary particles. The Standard Model includes 12 elementary particles of spin of which half are known as fermions. According to the spin-statistics theorem each fermion 'neutrino' has a corresponding antiparticle.

But, in the electric universe model, there is no antimatter forming antiparticles. In the electric universe, the neutrino is everything all at the same time. You see, an electron and a positron are composed of the same charged sub-particles in different conformations. They come together to form a neutrino (subatomic particle) and a stable neutrino at that, emitting most of their orbital energies in the process. They do not annihilate each other. In that sense a neutrino embodies both the electron and the positron.


The big debate is whether or not the neutrino could be the first ever example of a type of particle that is its own antiparticle and not separate from its 'other self' not able to destroy its other self as the Standard Model proposes. And, this is the reason for all the 'gravity' concerning what is really real in the social imagination; a place in the mind of men where there is only agreement reality and even that can flip flop just like neutrinos. 

*Source ~ http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/

In Search of the Truth in the Social Imagination!

Why is it that man searches for truth? And the truth about what??? The truth about life???

Is the search for the 'truth' about life driven by the fundamental anxiety- the fear of the unknown and death? Perhaps, but rather in his social imagination the quest for truth is much more than overcoming or facing fears. It is more about finding real life and peace of mind. The answer to that is built into what we hope for which is eternal life and peace as in that exists the absolute truth of our being. 

We search for truth because we want to know what comes next (the hope for what comes next) because we want to and we need to know what a man can set his/her mind on and in doing so, come to know the real truth about him/herself. 

The pursuit of such a truth has led man to make incredible discoveries in the sciences and in the arts: beautiful music, poetry, plays, and books. Man in his endeavors searches for the truth a truth not only about himself but about his creator. The great why and what for question. Which is probably the most important aspect for understanding the human being whatsoever. Every man seeks the truth his/her way and seeks for agreement within their circle of expertise and or colleagues, friends, society. 

Since, I am of the social sciences - sociology, and I am of the western social imagination, then my own quest for truth has to start there - the in the western social imagination and or mindset. I read recently that the western intellectual tradition is unique; well, couldn't we say... so it goes with any tradition. Yet, the history of western philosophy and its social imagination is unique and it must begin with an investigation of ancient Greek thought 'social imagination'. 

From Thales and the matter philosophers to the empiricism of Aristotle, the Greeks passed on to the west a spirit of rational inquiry that is very much our own intellectual property. And while we may never think of Plato or Aristotle as we carry on in our daily lives, it was their inquiry into knowledge that has served as the foundation for all subsequent inquiries... rational inquiry. 

Rational inquiry is one that follows Newton's laws of therm o-dynamics; specifically, the third law = for every action is a reaction and that an isolated force does not exist. Issac Newton was around long after Greek thought but Greek thought had made a path for him as we can read in the works of Plato and Aristotle.    

From Thales, who is often considered the first Western philosopher, to the Stoics and Skeptics, ancient Greek philosophy opened the doors to a particular way of thinking that provided the roots for the Western intellectual tradition. Here, there is often an explicit preference for the life of reason and rational thought. And, perhaps that is why Paul was guided to Greek/Gentiles with the Gospel.

Within that 'ethnos' we find proto-scientific explanations of the natural world in the Milesian thinkers, and we hear Democritus posit atoms as indivisible and invisible units as the basic stuff of all matter. With Socrates comes a sustained inquiry into ethical matters as an orientation towards human living and the best life for human beings. Plato’s student, Aristotle, was one of the most prolific of ancient authors. He wrote treatises on each of these topics, as well as on the investigation of the natural world.

Aristotle argued that the cosmos and its heavenly bodies are in perpetual motion and always has been. There could not have been a time with no motion, whatever is moved is moved by itself or by another. Rest is simply a privation of motion. Thus, if there were a time without motion, then whatever existed which had the power to cause motion in other beings would have been at rest. 

If so, then it at some point had to have been in motion since rest is the privation of motion. Motion, then, is eternal. What moves the cosmos? This must be the unmoved mover, or God, but God does not move the cosmos as an efficient cause, but as a final cause.

Isaac Newton said that there is no isolated external cause. Hence, for Newton and his furthering development of rational thought, there is a Creator that interacts with the creation and in that is where truth is found. 

Now, of course we cannot know exactly if all the Greek thinkers were considering this aspect fully; yet Plato seems to have been going in that direction of thought when he said that there is an absolute entity that in its entirety is a mystery always moving and unknowable. Aristotle a student of Plato had a slightly different view.  His view was that such an entity was an unmoved mover who as a final cause was to move. 

Both were somehow right and wrong. It was Newton that really had it right... there is a mover and that mover is not isolated or unknowable. This is rational thought at its height of glory and in that 'rational thought' western man began to make leaps and bounds in knowledge of the universe and in his social imagination. How do we know that Newton was right? 

We know from the process of information and that coded information is created to contain and move information. Can you know the source of that information in its entirety? Could a super computer know its creator in his/her entirety?  Could a complex design know exactly where and why it began? No, in its complexity there is the unlikely possibility it would find it in its entirety let alone know it had.  Its a matter of hope that in truth we live, move and have our being in Him ~ Acts 17:28.

Expectation and Reciprocation... in the Social Imagination!

People think that they can make everyone in society equal and make everything fair but who is the judge of that? Expectation and reciprocation are relative... we expect certain behavior from some people and not from others and the same for reciprocation. Whether we are talking about our friends, siblings, parents, spouses, neighbors, politicians or bankers, we expect things (abstract and real) and we expect things to be mutually reciprocated. We expect that and its not always the case to get back in the same way or amount that you think you gave.

Time is always a difficult subject or thing to expect from someone and to reciprocate. Money follows, and then love, friendship, duty, and death. Yes, we even include death; an eye for an eye... And, these days, people don't expect to die but they will and some will have to and some people are expected to die but they don't... not when they are expected to or even want to. Sound crazy? Its all in the social imagination which is good, bad and ugly.

I saw a 'post-apocalyptic'  television series; it very well written as it looked carefully at expectations and reciprocation. In the later part of the series as it appeared that maybe the situation was getting better since the military took over and a new government was forming, we realize that the only way to organize a society that is equal and fair for everyone is to codify all behavior, codify all goods and services, transactions involving ownership, marriage, births and deaths. If there wasn't a bar code for something, then a chain reaction was eminent and it had to be remedy quickly.

There was no need for self determination, self motivation, self sufficiency, or selfishness... because, it was all coded in to make it all fair. No one had to expect anything and no one had to reciprocate to anyone. Is that where we are headed? You can't make all things equal and fair without striping bare humanity with its good, bad and ugly social imagination. Its the giving and taking, the push and pull that keeps us human, that brings out the good, bad and ugly.

Expectation and reciprocation keeps us from the pit of entropy. And, yet its that pit of entropy as an expression of disorder, or the seeming randomness of a system, or of our lack of information about it that keeps us going somewhere... or at least reaching out in our social imagination to interact and expect results and for those results to be reciprocated back into something we can all make use of or sense of in our social imagination even in the smallest way.

The Social Imagination Revisted ~ A Framework for Christianity!

We are in the world but not of it... and to be of it means to have lost sight of the self or given it over to a massive sea where all those that were once a 'self' are now lost in that sea. Essentially, that means that though we are part of a wider social imagination, it is the individual in it that must never lose sight of itself; it must love itself first in order to love its neighbor. For without this key attribute, it the 'self' is without meaning and if the self is without meaning the social imagination is too; and, it will eventually destroy the self in this meaningless vacuum. 

A society must never lose sight of the one in the many. One lost sheep found is as precious or greater than the masses that never strayed.The study of social imagination was my forte and is still the most important study in human history and in respect of all other sciences. Why? Because, it is the study of the collective mentality - the social imagination.

Essentially, there two functions of the social imagination. The first function has three main fundamental aspects: a definite original source (of information), components and limits. This first function directly enables the second which is the filtering process of the concept creative. This second function has no need of its own fundamental aspects as it is grounded by the first. The first function is ‘basic’ everyday routine whereby bodily movement in time and space are observed and serves an elementary plane of attention to life, paramount reality. 

The first function is for simple performance as in simple bodily movement that enables getting from here to there without, let us say, much thought. It could be seen as the default mode program; whereas, the second function is the concept/ creative is for the purpose of escaping that routine, beginning with bodily movement incorporating gesture that has meaning other than just getting from one point in space to another. 

The second function, the concept/ creative is enabled by the first function. It is where language and communication are occupied. The second function is relies on language in a specific way, it does not need to repeat generalities; it needs to articulate greater expectation, and creative performance, it is the place in human consciousness where social imagination exists and in saying that the two expressions are one and the same. 

There is an interconnected participatory feature of the first function and second function, experienced through bodily moments which cause tensions of consciousness between the first function and the second function.  The second function reacts to such tensions from the first function and is able to respond in a concept/ creative mode so that that relation with the first function acting as a background, a default program and the second function create social imagination. 

In some respect, the second function allows the collective conscious, the collective mentality, the group as having shared interest, to imagine and focus on the things that it creates out of its shared imagining. Through tensions between the first function and second function social imagination as having a concept / creative function transcends what is and is able to postulate what ought to be; thus, social consciousness moves onto another plane of accent to reality, another attention to life, a higher order of human consciousness.

In theory, social imagination can be conceived as the collective mentality of a group of people. For most social scientists this is an observational and testable entity as sociology generally looks at human actions to explain society. Thus, they are measured and quantified and thus predictable.

However, what is left of an observation but an image or residue of what was real. The collective mentality of a group is the forerunner to an observable action. Those on the inside have inside information and or knowledge as to why they did this or that and for what reasons. Anyone on the outside of that group will only see the residues of that information... traces left over. 

The meaning of human action directly stems from or out of the collective mentality. The residues of that action has little meaning for outside observers and even for those inside all that is left is meaning and that alone is retained in the collective mentality - the social imagination. 

You see, action alone does not contain meaning but is the vehicle of it, only the drivers know the direction and what for.  Action is only a pattern of physical movement; this is the purpose of the first function of social imagination. 

As stated above, essentially the social imagination exists has three aspects and two functions. The three aspects (composing the first function) are: source of information (presuming that all social reality is information that has a source), components which are social actors as Durkheim might call them... all minds or 'singular' imaginations that compose a definable group 'collective mentality' and perimeters/boundaries as in limitations due to the source and combined components. 

The two functions are: action/ physical, and the second function also has aspects. The first aspect is  also physical 'mechanical' as we might think of a processor which processes of information shared through the first function - which is the only means as in way for 'human' processors to interact. The meaning that arises from that interaction which we can call social action is the direct activity or interaction of those functions. From the point of view of phenomenology, social imagination is that which gives meaning to action - shared information in a place over a period of time. 

The second aspect of the second function is the concept/ creative function of the collective mentality, of social imagination, uses imagining and imagery in its creative mode of function. And, it is there that the social imagination can expand but not necessarily for it is still linked in to its first function with its source of information which though enables also grounds. It is this social imagination that keeps us human and it keeps us intact in the place where we are 'grounded' and fully functioning in the place where we are.

Where is the individual in all this since it is from the individual perspective that we even experience the social imagination - social reality?  This is a fair and good question. The individual though a composite is at the same time its own unique composite unlike any other in the same detail, but the same in terms of process and need of information to be fully realized or actual in the place it is. This is perhaps the basis of all western civilization (being one in many and the many for the one) social imagination as found in my own research exploring the social imagination through the topic of ideal society.

We are in the world but not of it... and to be of it means to have lost sight of the self or given it over to a massive sea where all those that were once a 'self' are now lost in that sea. Essentially, that means that though we are part of a wider social imagination, it is the individual in it that must never lose sight of itself; it must love itself first in order to love its neighbor. For without this key attribute, it the 'self' is without meaning and if the self is without meaning the social imagination is too; and, it will eventually destroy the self in this meaningless vacuum. A society must never lose sight of the one in the many. One lost sheep found is as precious or greater than the masses that never strayed.

*Source - PhD dissertation on the Social Imagination - "Imagining Ideal Society: Exploring the concept/Creative Function in the Occident Social Imagination".... Dr. E.F. Gallion

Expectations Are Good, Bad and Ugly in The Social Imagination!

When we expect too much we become disappointed. This can happen between people that know each other very well and between people that don't know each other at all.

We live in our social imagination and that is where we will always be. It begins for us with mother for she imparts her social knowledge to her infant even before its born. Everything mother knows, trusts, and expects is transferred; including what she doesn't know, doesn't trust and doesn't expect.

In saying that, we can't imagine she could transfer what she doesn't know or trust or expect but lack of information or no information 'no data' as in blanks transfers as much as data bits filled with good, bad and ugly information does.

We come to expect certain things and behaviors from people firstly based on what mother expected or not and later as the socialization process continues, those expectations continue as well. We can expect more or less from people or nothing at all based on social encounters. When we expect less or nothing, we tend to move away from that person or group of people.

We like some and dislike others. This can appear as prejudice or discrimination. It does not mean we intentionally dislike to the point of hating someone or another group. It simply means that we like and don't like based on what we expect.  What we don't like is often due to not knowing what to expect given limited or lack of information; that along with our preferences for liking or not liking one thing or person over another is largely based on what we expect firstly from ourselves and then from those that we know which we expect will reciprocate in a like manner.

Sometimes, a person is not able to reciprocate in a like manner due to economic hardship, due to lack of cultural information or lack of social knowledge or lack of experience in a behavior that would give support for 'right' or expected amount of reciprocation.  The simplest example of this is when you are in a crowded place and overloaded with a burden of whatever kind. Someone you don't know at all bumps into you.

The first reaction is one of expectation - you look for an apology. As you do that, you instantly scan the individual in terms of obvious physical differences. When the apology does not come in the moment you expected it or even not all... judgement and discrimination kick in. You calculate in your social imagination all information on that 'type' of person, you place them in a group of information.

The next time you are in the same situation, you avoid all those 'types'; because, you know what not to expect and what to expect. Think about it. Consider all those seemingly 'innocent' from an outside observer's view that have caused you to expect more or less from someone or a group of people.

You don't ask them out to lunch or over to your house, you don't engage them in conversation, you don't deal fairly with them in the office or in public, you join in with others who mock them as you feel that they too have been disappointed and expectations are low.

Someone once told me not to expect anything from anyone and you will never be disappointed. But, what kind of society would that be, what kind of social imagination would that provide... gray! We live in a social imagination and in it there will be good, bad and ugly information and expectations or lack thereof but it is necessary for social reality, necessary for its existence. We can imagine because of those things which we know well, know a little about and don't know much about.

In that social imagination, we live, move and have our being. As Durkheim would have called it - sui generis. This is a fallen world and thus it is not perfect. And, in this imperfect 'world' this imperfect social imagination we rise and fall, we cry, and sing, we love and even hate but we live.

God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. ‘For in Him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘- We are His offspring.’ Therefore, being offspring of God, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by man’s skill and imagination.…
Acts 17:27-29.

Expectation and Maturity in the Social Imagination!

Expectation and Maturity go hand in hand in the social reality - the social imagination. And, well they should. Why? Because, we need to expect a certain amount of social input from social actors in order to be and remain a stable social reality. Now, expecting something from someone means that usually they are ready to be expected of and that something is expected from them; hence, their social input can be expected in the social imagination - social reality.

More and more these days, we don't know what to expect from people. Now either they are rejecting their role and expectations that come with a certain role/identity or they are not mature enough to accept it or they are not being instructed as to what that role is and what is expected.

So, what is it? I think it is a combination of things. And, that is not really a good thing. Yes, of course, it sounds so nice and kind and tolerant to someone because you want to be liked for who you are and they want to be liked for who they are, but who are they if we don't know what to expect? And, in saying that...  are you expected of and are you able to fulfill that expectation? Can anyone expect anything from you? And, shouldn't you expect something in return from them?

Those are reasonable questions if we want to understand what is happening in the social imagination and where it is going. We should at least take a careful and long look at social reality on all levels. Because, we might be headed for a social imagination - social reality train wreck. Strangely, some that may be ok as its all about transitioning or 'evolving' into another kind of social imagination - social reality.

If that is the case, we will still find ourselves back to the same question and or problem, what can we expect from that 'transition' and its outcome? The answer seems to be that no one knows for sure. Isn't that to be expected? Certainly, we cannot know everything that transitions from one thing to another be we can certainly have expectations. If we have no expectations, we really don't have a clue what the future may hold in terms of social reality let alone the current social reality in transition if that is the case.

I look around and try to see if there is anything observable in a state of transitions that suggest what I might expect. Yes, there are observable people/places and things.  They all seem to go hand in hand and I think the best observable place is Walmart; after all it is nationwide and serves a great majority. But, before I describe those observations, let's take a look at one man's view of individuals in society.

George Simmel, a first generation German sociologist, observed "all the forms of association by which a mere sum of separate individuals are made into a 'society,'" which he describes as a, "higher unity," composed of individuals. Which means that man only knows himself an individual 'form' because he first sees himself in a group form. Which I described in my dissertation as the functions of the social imagination.

We can observe this behavior in the public setting most as we notice forms of individuals who are identfying with 'their' group and yet part of an even wider group of which they belong to and may or may not agree 100% with all other groups but yet partake at the wider level because of the wider level's acceptance of 'diversity' as long as within that diversity the elite groups especially followed by other groups composing the wider level agree on at least a few perimeters that define the social reality - social imagination at its widest; i.e. human in a democratic free market.

Expectations can run both high and low in such a layered social reality where many groups compose the wider group - sui generis. Thinking about my observations at Walmart, we are starting to see that expectations are very low in most groups of average education and income which remains the biggest group in America.

I have a few of my favorite groups which I would like to introduce: the just got out of bed group, the just got out of the shower 'flipflop' wearing group, the just got off work group, the just don't care out of work group, the senior 'blue hair' group that don't care or have no one to care, the overweight and I don't care group, the teenage 'purple and or green hair' I don't care about the future group, the single mom with no makeup and screaming kids with no father group and lastly, the traveling with extended family from another country group. All of these groups represent Simmel's forms and at the same time represent lack of expectation and maturity by the individuals and the wider society - but there are those that would argue "Its one big wider social imagination".

The only problem with those groups is that its difficult to know what to expect and to see the maturity level and know what to expect from them if anything from them. And, that is a problem for society - the widest of the social imagination. Expectation and maturity do go hand in hand at the widest level. We need to expect a certain respect for citizenship, family, health and well being; all of which should display a good measure of maturity. All of which tells something of the social imagination/reality - society!

Not wanting to single out any group in particular but it is strange that even when warned that wearing flipflops are bad for health, some people still wear them. Where is the maturity in that kind of thinking?  From that group, guess we shouldn't expect much...

The Social Imagination Revisited ~ The Framework for a Social Quantum Program

Man is all information ... applied in imagination.   

The study of social imagination is the study of the collective mentality - the social imagination.

Essentially, there two functions of the social imagination. The first function has three main fundamental aspects: a definite original source (of information), components and limits. This first function directly enables the second which is the filtering process of the concept creative. This second function has no need of its own fundamental aspects as it is grounded by the first. The first function is ‘basic’ everyday routine whereby bodily movement in time and space are observed and serves an elementary plane of attention to life, paramount reality. 

The first function is for simple performance as in simple bodily movement that enables getting from here to there without, let us say, much thought. It could be seen as the default mode program; whereas, the second function is the concept/ creative is for the purpose of escaping that routine, beginning with bodily movement incorporating gesture that has meaning other than just getting from one point in space to another. 

The second function, the concept/ creative is enabled by the first function. It is where language and communication are occupied. The second function is relies on language in a specific way, it does not need to repeat generalities; it needs to articulate greater expectation, and creative performance, it is the place in human consciousness where social imagination exists and in saying that the two expressions are one and the same. 

There is an interconnected participatory feature of the first function and second function, experienced through bodily moments which cause tensions of consciousness between the first function and the second function.  The second function reacts to such tensions from the first function and is able to respond in a concept/ creative mode so that that relation with the first function acting as a background, a default program and the second function create social imagination. 

In some respect, the second function allows the collective conscious, the collective mentality, the group as having shared interest, to imagine and focus on the things that it creates out of its shared imagining. Through tensions between the first function and second function social imagination as having a concept / creative function transcends what is and is able to postulate what ought to be; thus, social consciousness moves onto another plane of accent to reality, another attention to life, a higher order of human consciousness.

In theory, social imagination can be conceived as the collective mentality of a group of people. For most social scientists this is an observational and testable entity as sociology generally looks at human actions to explain society. Thus, they are measured and quantified and thus predictable.

However, what is left of an observation but an image or residue of what was real. The collective mentality of a group is the forerunner to an observable action. Those on the inside have inside information and or knowledge as to why they did this or that and for what reasons. Anyone on the outside of that group will only see the residues of that information... traces left over. 

The meaning of human action directly stems from or out of the collective mentality. The residues of that action has little meaning for outside observers and even for those inside all that is left is meaning and that alone is retained in the collective mentality - the social imagination. 

You see, action alone does not contain meaning but is the vehicle of it, only the drivers know the direction and what for.  Action is only a pattern of physical movement; this is the purpose of the first function of social imagination. 

As stated above, essentially the social imagination exists has three aspects and two functions. The three aspects (composing the first function) are: source of information (presuming that all social reality is information that has a source), components which are social actors as Durkheim might call them... all minds or 'singular' imaginations that compose a definable group 'collective mentality' and perimeters/boundaries as in limitations due to the source and combined components. 

The two functions are: action/ physical, and the second function also has aspects. The first aspect is  also physical 'mechanical' as we might think of a processor which processes of information shared through the first function - which is the only means as in way for 'human' processors to interact. The meaning that arises from that interaction which we can call social action is the direct activity or interaction of those functions. From the point of view of phenomenology, social imagination is that which gives meaning to action - shared information in a place over a period of time. 

The second aspect of the second function is the concept/ creative function of the collective mentality, of social imagination, uses imagining and imagery in its creative mode of function. And, it is there that the social imagination can expand but not necessarily for it is still linked in to its first function with its source of information which though enables also grounds. It is this social imagination that keeps us human and it keeps us intact in the place where we are 'grounded' and fully functioning in the place where we are.

Where is the individual in all this since it is from the individual perspective that we even experience the social imagination - social reality?  This is a fair and good question. The individual though a composite is at the same time its own unique composite unlike any other in the same detail, but the same in terms of process and need of information to be fully realized or actual in the place it is. This is perhaps the basis of all western civilization (being one in many and the many for the one) social imagination as found in my own research exploring the social imagination through the topic of ideal society.

We are in the world but not of it... and to be of it means to have lost sight of the self or given it over to a massive sea where all those that were once a 'self' are not lost in that sea. Essentially, that means that though we are part of a wider social imagination, it is the individual in it that must never lose sight of itself; it must love itself first in order to love its neighbor. For without this key attribute, it is without meaning. Any society must never lose sight of the one in the many. One lost sheep found is as precious or greater than the masses that never strayed.

*Source - PhD dissertation on the Social Imagination - "Imagining Ideal Society: Exploring the concept/Creative Function in the Occident Social Imagination".... Dr. E.F. Gallion

Evolution in the 'Elite' Social Imagination

An article about how a certain social imagination is wrong and another is right based on the 'politics' of evolution shows the lengths some will go to in order to gain social favor. Yes, the agenda of the article was clearly politically motivated and  the title was the key- "How to Slam Dunk Creationists". What it should have read was - "How to be on the right side of politics... in order to get ahead... a kind of social imagination evolution!"

Firstly, Darwinian evolution... if we are talking about how a blob became an living microbe which then became a kind of fish which suddenly left a suitable environment as in where a fish belongs... in the water, and thus decided or was inspired to climb of its near perfect environment in order to become something and so on, is the truth of all reality, is not the result of clear evidence. There are No transitional forms! 

All of that evolution is ... is just man's theory about life and theory lives in the social imagination... which means it is no more than an agreed upon perception of what is and is not by a group of people in a specified institution to which not all people are accepted at and or ever likely to be; and that has only to do with affluence and money not competency which would be evolutionary. 

But putting down those in higher education isn't my business; after all, I have a PhD in Sociology. But, I can tell you that as a sociologist, agreement reality is all science is and can ever be. Science is not outside of man's social imagination nor can it ever be. Secondly, we can observe a species adapting to an environment. 

We find similarities because of their living and being in a similar environment over time where certain attributes work well making adaptation to the surroundings more suitable, comfortable and sustainable. This is does not however indicate a complete and total evolution of a species into another kind. As for proof of that, there are a number of fish that were around 300 million years ago and they still are... unchanged. That means that they are the same now and then. 

How are those fish still possible (in the form there were and still are) if everything has been evolving for millions of years? For evolution to be even remotely a discussion about reality (which is only social), one has to first accept the idea that evolution moves as a whole since environment is certainly part of reality and its processes. 

Environment has to be conducive to cause change or accept changes made by the species as they pertain to the species in that given environment. Now, one can make the argument that some stay and some go... but those that stay and go also can dramatically change the environment so once again, evolution has to move a solid whole and not 'spotty' examples which are by the way hypothetical at best!

And, who was Charles Darwin anyway?  He was the son of a high society doctor. He is described by Britannica as an affable country gentleman. Darwin at first shocked religious Victorian society by suggesting (SUGGESTING is the word used by Britannica /NOT PROVING) that animals and humans shared a common ancestry. 

However, his nonreligious biology APPEALED TO THE RISING CLASS of professional scientists, and by the time of his death evolutionary imagery had spread through all of science, literature, and politics. Wow, there it is people. And, it was called evolutionary imagery! Just as I said above. Agreement reality through social imagination of elites who gain from this kind of agenda on the political platform.

Again, Darwin was the son of a high society doctor and considered a 'wastrel' by his own father! How despicably duped we have been all these years. Darwin was as suggested above, the product of a certain group of people and so was his so-called theory. A desperate attempt to win socio-politcal favor.

What about Darwin's beliefs... he claimed to be an agnostic. Its likely that he would take such a stand given what is now known about his social circles; such a position regarding faith in a creator would allow him to remain comfortable in that circle and gain 'safe' attention with his illogical perception  acquired in an ill (illite/elite) social imagination.

Archaeopteryx is Not a transitional form! It is the fossil of an extinct bird. It simply could not be a transitional form. The design of a bird is one for flight. It has to be in its complete form to lift off and soar. The fossil of the bird found in Europe was pieced together and put forward as such by elite professionals who wanted to simply maintain their institutional positions and promote their illite/elite world view.  

In short, the thesis of bird evolution is not consistent with biological or paleontological evidence, but is a fictitious, unrealistic claim stemming from Darwinist (elitist) preconceptions. The subject of bird evolution, which some experts speak of as if it were scientific fact, is a myth kept alive for vain elitist political reasons.







* Source of article ~ https://www.yahoo.com/news/slam-dunk-creationists-comes-theory-134405757.html