One of the ironies of modern culture is that even as the triumphs of physics have led to the secularization of thought, and a challenge to religion, the arising social theories in the wake of that revolution have proven unable to compete with the built in universal histories given by religious tradition. These historical epics, plied to this day by their religious bards, evoke the response to action and ethical deliberation that 'scientific' theories are incapable of. As these archaic sagas pass into history the substitution of theories in their place has created a series of confusions. The spastic social 'theorist' is left with a form of social trash left behind by physics and can't even resolve the issue of ethics, save as a new theory of its causal mechanics, a hopeless muddle that leaves the lingering religionist puzzled, and prepared to baulk at the rise of science. The solution is the construction of a new perspective on universal histories in the light of the idea of evolution, done right in the light of a Kantian critique, and we have indicated a few steps on the way to that objective. The reason, for example, that the Biblical histories given by tradition prove tenacious in their appeal even to secularists is that they conceal as with mother's milk many of the elements of an eonic model, such as a primitive version of the 'eonic evolution' we have described, and automatically a version, however outlandish, of the distinction of 'system action, and free action', that we have indicated The phase of social theories is only that, perhaps, a phase, and a new perspective on social action is required for an age of science, a task amply prophesied by figures such as Kant. The plight of Oedipus was a tragic one, and the future of bad theories will prove no less a misfortune as the legacy of Social Darwinism makes clear.