05.09.09

Lewontin, you know Darwinism is dead, so why not say so?

Posted in Evolution, Ultra Far Left at 2:24 pm by nemo

Why Darwin?

Maybe Lewontin is indulging is smoke signals: this review must be intended to signal doubt to the true believers, in the ultra-soft-pedalling approach to Darwin critique promoted by Science For The People: lambast the right, pour water on E.O. Wilson, but never never doubt Darwin. When that becomes inevitable, then articles like these.
Why Darwin, indeed?
It is hard to figure Lewontin. He was a participant in the Altenberg 16 conference and must know, surely, that Darwinism is dead, and evolutionary theory on the move. Why continue to deceive us, and peddle the usual high priced oulala for New York Review of Books. Is this book review run by completely stupid people? Can’t anyone with a left/humanistic bent figure out that they are shirking their duties by promoting capitalist ideology in the guise of Darwinian biology. Can’t the left, finally, finally, show some glimmering of insight?

Why Darwin, indeed? First, Lewontin should read, if he hasn’t already, The Darwin Conspiracy, by Roy Davies. Why not review it at NYRB?
Darwin was a fraud, a plagiarist, and a sneaky and untruthful person. We should doubt his veracity.
So the question should be
Why Wallaceism? Actually Wallace answered his own question, and disowned his breathrough papers, leaving Darwin in the lurch.

Lewontin is right: the idea of evolution was very much in the air well before Darwin. Lamarck, who keeps getting the distraction routine due to his theory of adaptation, essentially got evolution right: it operates on two levels. This insight was lost in ‘Darwinism’ where the completely misleading one-level theory of natural selection created a situation where the Darwin debate is intractable and permanent.
Since Lewontin is supposed to be some sort of leftist, we might remind him that Marx gagged on Darwinism, at first sight.
So is the current left merely a pimple of the ‘haute bourgeoisie’ to be constantly promoting Darwinian ideology, with a straight face?

I think Lewontin and Gould have done more to delay paradigm change than almost anyone else, due to their leftist supposedly sincere viewpoints. As Gould intimidated more than twenty years ago, the Darwinian game is over. So why not just say so, Mr. Lewontin?

Meanwhile, between Lamarck and Wallace, Darwinism is practically a form of archaic religion.

Note: Lewontin long since got a review copy of WHEE. I am shocked he won’t review that.

Permalink