I consider myself an enthusiast on science, but the reality sinks in, looking at the Darwin debate, that modern science is a failure inside of an apparent success. The inability to even contemplate criticism of the Darwin paradigm is puzzling: science makes it easy to review old paradigms, but not here, in the case of evolution. On evolution science is close to Orwellian.
And the left is suffering from this confusion: it should be the job of leftists to expose ideology. But here they embrace, reserving criticism for a decoy, sociobiology, or evolutionary psychology.
Descent of Man Revisited (free online, and available for .06 cents at Amazon) gives a clear outline of the reasons for the failure of Darwinism on human evolution. But the book is ostracized by all academic venues of review and I was stunned to discover that it is banned from even the Library of Congress! I sent them a free copy, but it was thrown away (the office of copyright is forced to keep one copy, however, deep in the stacks somewhere). Not to worry, the harder they fall in the end…The book has outsmarted the censors with over a hundred thousand readers of the online version, with fifty to a hundred new readers a day. The book makes it clear I think that human evolution, if that is even the right word, impinges on a set of problems that are insoluble by natural selection. One of them is the issue of language, and then the issues of consciousness, and finally of ethics. Scientists are simply incapable of seeing why evolutionary psychology can’t explain these things. Part of the problem is the prestige of science, given that many scientists are very intelligent. But this is misleading. People with high IQ’s are apparently as retarded on the Darwin question as anyone else. Scientific intelligence tends to be a narrow set of procedures, from experiment, to problem solving using the built in crib called ‘mathematics’. Outside the realm of such laws the unknown begins. Well, maybe. But it is clear that part of the problem with evolutionary theory is that Darwin’s theory of natural selection seems to qualify as a scientific law. But that is misleading. It doesn’t follow. Clearly science-club thinking is at work here and producing the wrong result. It is significant that Darwin, who most probably plagiarized from Wallace, was not capable enough to see why the theory he got from Wallace was an oversimplification, as Wallace soon realized, changing his view.
In any case, I hope that the left will be able to escape this quagmire and lead the way beyond Darwinism. The right has made a mockery of the question, unwittingly, by producing, albeit via the dubious argument by design, a set of robust critiques of Darwinism (most of them in origin from scientists, from Lovtrup, to Denton). This has given a false set of credentials to design thinking. This is a problem the left should correct. This theory of Darwin is going to wreck secularism, because the impression is strong and growing that so-called secularists are simply stupid.
A new form of true secularism is needed from the left, and much of the old left’s thinking, nineteenth century positivism, is part of the legacy that produced confusions like that of Darwinism.