The issue of darwinism is taken as refuted in Last and First Men, and I know the left will resist this conclusion til the bitter end. But the time is getting short: if the left delays any longer it will be the last to grasp a crucial issue and stand behind bible belt creationists in grasping the issue.
And the reality is that Marx’s initial impression of Darwin’s theory was of an ideology. How could the left be so stuck here? Whatever the case the time to move on is here: delay will leave still more suspicion.
The strategy in Last and First Men is to use an historical model to show that a non-random pattern in world history shows something couldn’t have emerged at random. That doesn’t prove anything about deep time,but darwinian claims don’t prove anything either, and we become suspicious that the natural selection thesis is too conveniently displaced beyond observation, making it a useful way to claim the authority of a paradigm that, as Popper noted long ago, is not ‘falsifiable’. The latter has been ‘refuted’ many times: but the point is that we are simply assuming things about eras we see only in coarse grain, which is misleading.
The left needs to aggressively assist the passage beyond the darwinist confusion, and I think the historical model in LFM can help: it is not a new theory, but a way to quarantine history from deep time: we see that history has its own logic. Applying darwinism to historical evolution won’t work.