The question of evolution is so controversial and paradigm bound that advocating a critique, of darwinism, could derail a radical movement, hence the temptation to conform. But we must break out of that now. We can’t any longer propose a view of history as a foundation for postcapitalism that doesn’t adopt a new perspective. Adherence to darwinism causes a false set of assumptions about history, to say nothing of science.
In fact the left here could score a coup by adopting a view moving toward real science from the current pseudo-science of darwinism.
There is an easy way to go here, a simplified version of the model in WHEE (history-and-evolution.com):
We get clear about statistics (the whole biological community is confused here): Hoyle pointed the way and sank darwinism in one line in the 1950’s
we thus reject natural selection as the mechanism of evolution
we adopt a partially agnostic stance: we see the facts of evolution in deep time, but we don’t see the mechanism in full
that’s it. That’s enough to proceed. We don’t have to indulge in religious or ID arguments.
Thus the left can remain within the paradigm of evolution but insist in the name of science on not confirming to selectionist theory. This could be of great assistance to a secular culture totally confused and misled here, a step toward science. And all the prestige scientists here, including top physicists? Frankly, they are probably liars, but the study of physics has never helped physicists here. Darwinists are hopeless cases. What about the fact that on the average people who support darwnism have higher IQ’s, one the most subtle supports of the theory? Refer to Hoyle again. He sank the ship long ago. Smart people in science are actually a laughingstock here.
We can go further, but additional controversial aspects come to the fore. One thing that can help is to consider the Kantian realm of the teleomechanists, an early biological school way before Darwin, but almost unknown now.
You can also take a look at WHEE: this shows how an ‘evolutionary’ (i.e. developmental) system works, more or less. It is one model of how, we suspect, real evolution happens: via a discrete/continuous system as a driver, etc…That raises a lot of questions, but at least seeing an example of something not a claim about chance can help.
But this is complicated. We conclude by referring to our basic tactic, as above in the blockquote.