I have been told many times that the simplest and most decisive critique of darwinism is the second chapter of WHEE (World History and the Eonic Effect). The larger account of world history and evolutionary analysis has had a harder time gaining traction. That is in part because it adopts a new way to model historical entities and it uses the term ‘evolution’ in a way that those trained in darwinism can’t deal with. But the question is clear: the evidence of a non-random pattern, and world history shows a massive one, demands some sort of explanation: it is the signature of a dynamic. If that dynamics concerns developmental questions then the term ‘evolution’ applies. And the final question is: can we connect the ‘evolution’ of civilization with that of homo sapiens. The logic here is discussed at length in WHEE. But that is another issue. The question of darwinism is very simple: as Fred Hoyle made clear the statistics of random evolution make nonsense of the theory of Darwin.
It should be the task of a scientist to consider such a final judgment, but instead we have an endless evasion of the obvious and the stultification of the public.
The question has more or less paralyzed the old left.
General culture, which I am sure includes the cretins at Nation mag, is run by machiavellians who confront this situation and elect to simply lie…