I am not quite sure this is the right link, but it’s close: a critique of educational establishments, a critique of meritocracy, and a critique of scientism, while not unified as a single problem, demand an answer to the stubborn inability of the intellectual elite to evaluate issues of evolution. The problem has devolved to religious groups, who can’t extract the issue from their own ideology, I sometimes wonder if I, as an outsider, am the only one who can look at the problem out of its darwinian container.
It remains hard to grasp the way a question that has been frozen since the nineteenth century can turn into such a rigid ideology. Even the left is stuck: they sense the problems with darwinism but must find a way to set critique within the paradigm: the tactics of the dreary Science/for the/People group, and the marxists.
It is a strong critique of meritocracy to see the way the ‘smartest’ are equally stuck in the paradigm. We have a partial clue in the New Atheists who expose the hidden agenda of darwinism in the way Dawkins with such deluded ‘smartness’ attempts to use the theory of natural selection to hold the fort against intelligent design. The whole platform is visibly false here, for reasons transparent from the outside.
In any case, the ID gambit is itself flawed, although I am not sure that the frenzy of denunciation by scientists is very helpful. This makes the exit strategy a problem for darwnists. I don’t see why scientists are so afraid of the design argument: you can simply note the way design claims are not open to proof, and the danger is stopped. And the issue of design won’t go away because it is a challenge, not one using theology, but one that attempts to review the anti-teleological obsession of reductionist scientism. Again this issue was grasped clearly two hundred years ago by Kant, who founded indirectly a school of teleomechanists who tried to revise for biology the breakthroughs of Newton so misapplied to exterior fields.