Update: The world of Darwinism, its pseudoscience, and cancel culture is baffling. It is as if physicists couldn’t discuss quantum mechanics because it contradicted Newton. It is hard to see how this paradigm became so totalitarian. It is almost beyond belief. Marxists, who should be critics of the obvious social Darwinism of Darwin and his theory, join the chorus of those who try to pin that on Herbert Spencer, the tactic also of the leftist sociobiologies who draw no critique Darwin. That was in the last century. They may be extinct now. In fact, Mar5xists should be the prime critics of Darwinian ideology. No such luck. How about Kant scholars. The model of the eonic effect also points to a simple solution to the classic challenge of Kant on history. Kant scholars cannot respond to the suggestion. Darwin cancel has perverted even the Kantian field, where in fact a starting point for a real biology of evolution emerged in his school. It cannot be discussed in public.
It is clear that outsiders are the only ones left to deal with many subjects that braindead academics annot handle, cannot discuss, cannot say they cannot discuss, and cannot communicate with anyone who might be ‘off-cancel’ here.
This is a fascinating take on cancel culture but there are cancellations and cancellations, and the critique of Darwinism will cause those who denounce cancellation to revert to…cancellation. There is a curious culture of evolutionary dogma that pervades the universities, thence the professions, and the range of secular culture with the eminent Richard Dawkins, the pope of natural selection, fulminating from his pulpit.
The tactic has proven effective in maintaining a paradigm’s dominance but in another it has handed the religious right a gift of dissent that unexpectedly for a secular liberal is cogent, using ideas mostly pilfered from secular critics of Darwin, now regrettably canceled all. It is a puzzle since a critique of Darwinism, as with any theory entering science, ought to be perfectly natural as standard operating procedure. But the case of natural selection is perverse and its absurdities and statistical impossibility, pointed out many times, have been concealed behind an ‘iron curtain’ of the Dawkins flock et al. It is very difficult to even discuss the issue in conventional circles and the result is curious semi-underground literature, but one with its own problematic confusions over the design argument. In part this is a secular challenge to theistic beliefs and creationist fundamentalism. But the ID movement has upgraded its act and has more or less demolished the Darwin paradigm. Not that there weren’t many other critics throughout. The case of Marx is very odd, and the literature suggests that just as Marx, cf. John Bellamy’s work, was aware of ecological issues, so he was also initially skeptical of Darwin’s theory, smelling a rat, English ideology, from the start, later it seems to acquiesce in the triumph of one of the dumbest ideas in science, still to this day, enshrined behind a wall of cancel culture. But times are changing and, beyond the religious fixation on design, the realization has dawned that something is awry in Darwin’s theory. The idea of design has shifted, at in some students, to the realization that design exists in nature and the question has no theological implications. It is all Kantian fare foreseen long ago, but before the onset of evolution. Kant’s school of teleomechanists should, next to Lamarck, be considered one aspect of the emergence of a science of evolution, a generation before Darwin. Let us note therefore that the initial entry into evolutionary science was by secular thinkers who saw the banishment of teleology in physics was a necessary advance, but that for biology and evolution the issue had to reexamined all over again. Science has yet to find the knack for a theory of teleology in the category of machines, but as always the mathematics of the subject probably already exists, at least in embryo.