I have updated my review of Zizek’s book. The hypocrisy on the evolution question allows Hegelian commentary to assume that the views of Hegel are compatible with Darwin. These authors obviously don’t want to make waves and risk the ire of the Darwin establishment.
Update 1: A question for Mr. Zizek …Is Zizek a Darwinist?
The text of a thousand pages on the dialectics of history has barely a reference to evolution, no mention of Darwin, and what I suspect is the usual bluff with academic Hegelians (and Kantians) that Hegel could have been a Darwinist and that the entire apparatus of Geist is not an Intelligent Design argument. Marxists will claim that ‘dialectical materialism’ would answer such objections, but we should wonder if this apparatus of dialectic (never clarified) could coexist with random evolution.
I would not fault Zizek for honestly stating he was not a Darwinist, but most would, and that would jeopardize his media position, sales, and celebrity status. This situation shows the futility of trying to base Marxist or capitalist-critique historicism on a Hegelian foundation. If you modify the foundation, why bother with it. If you maintain it then you are proposing an idealist theory of history. I am often puzzled that Marxists could never get beyond this Hegelian schizophrenia.
In any case, Hegel’s core is a teleological argument, an historicism of freedom, and a complex variant of an Intelligent Design argument. The monumental sophistries of academic Hegelians to maintain the pretense of an Hegelian Darwinism is ludicrous.
This inchoherence pervades the core of Zizek’s book, and we have to ask how a consistency can be recovered for a leftist historical/evolutonary viewpoint.