Darwinism and the left’s disgrace

Darwinism is the most blatant source of social Darwinism ideology but the left is oblivious to the issue, taking Marx’s embrace of Darwin at face value. His first reaction was the right one: ‘English ideology’, but he changed his story, did he simply lie? I fear that this has confused the left for generations and led to Stalin’s genocidal version of natural selection. Marxism remains forever suspect here, another reason to move on.

I find this book useful but those in the various camps, secular or religious, still take the issue to be theism versus atheism and that is not the case. I praised this book but in reality that&#821…

Source: A new critique of selectionist darwinism – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Sciam goes off its rocker…Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy – Scientific American


Source: Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy – Scientific American

This is an almost incredibly inappropriate article from SciAm which should be held accountable for this gross distortion. Biologists get so frustrated by their own stupidity on evolution they finally attempt to bludgeon the public into submission. But this tactic here fails completely, sorry.
It is incredibly irresponsible to call ‘denial of evolution’ a form of white supremacy. First, as usual a deliberate ambiguity forever gets exploited here: evolution as fact and evolution as theory. Here evidently ‘evolution’ is taken to assume that evolution means evolution by natural selection, a gross distortion of the whole issue. Evolution is set of facts in deep time about which we can be reasonably certain, but the process of natural selection is entirely speculative and almost certainly false. The term evolution often hops between categories: these days we read about mutating viruses. In many contexts evolution is for more complex entities, and then finally for the whole of life. These cases are entirely different and a mutant virus can tell us almost nothing about evolutionary processes at the level of complex species. We have no evidence of the ‘evolution’ of a whole species by natural selection. None. Reread that. Yes, but you say, we should trust the science, etc…You should not trust idiots even if they are official experts because biologists peddling Darwinism have done an incredibly stupid thing and turned the whole field into pseudo-science. How species evolve is simply unknown as yet and we have no direct evidence of such a process driven by natural selection. Not surprising: the idea is nonsense. Over and over and over critics have pointed to the simple statistical error behind claims for natural selection. But the bastion of scientific stupidity is impenetrable, it seems. Here professional caste and ideology reign. The question must be decided by outsiders who need to tread warily here. But in this case the confusion is so simple and obvious that an amateur can do better. Those who examine the professional cadre can see how the conditioning arises. If you examine the work of someone like Dawkins you can see the wrath of cancel culture at work in Darwinian biology. Clearly, biologists must remain confused or learn to lie and otherwise they won’t have a job. The salaries are serious money. For myself. I am an unemployed student of Greek who has to correct the errors of these idiots, or liars, free of charge. But it is almost impossible. Biology has seeded the whole planet with a delusive mythology of evolution.

The issues of racism and white supremacy are grossly mishandled by SciAm here. ‘Denial of evolution is a form of white supremacy’ is a gross distortion. First, there are millions of blacks ( and whites) who don’t believe in evolution and they can hardly be white supremacists. Religious fundamentalists of the south, Catholic creationists in, say, South America, the millions of Islamic faithful. Blacks in Africa.  Last but not least, Joe Biden, our Prez. To smear so many groups in this way is beyond belief. But it is not so likely that even whites would fall into such nonsense.  The issue revolves around ‘creationism’, but that comes in many forms. The problem is the almost retarded versions of creationist belief in the sense of fundamentalist views of the Bible. But there are many versions here, some of almost Kantian sophistication in the sense of the antinomial character of ‘beginnings in time’: the classic antinomy is, there is a beginning in time, there is no beginning it time. Here elusive forms of creationism lurk in many guises because, etc…

I am not a theist (or atheist) and reject creationist views because they have been taken over by the completely muddled believers of fundamentalism. But the antinomies of the Big Bang or no Big Bang and the cosmology of life so far have no settled answer.

In any case the question of how evolution, as speciation, occurs, remains an unanswered question. It must be something far more complex than we seem to realize. In the meantime accusing this immense diversity of people and views with charges of white supremacy is almost beyond belief. And the abuse of terms is seemingly deliberate: say ‘evolution’ and you mean darwinism, but the reality is not so simple. In fact the natural selection ideology is the least likely or sensible perspective.

Let’s learn the lesson. Scientists can be stupid. And they learn to deceive. It’s the economy, stupid…

On Evolution and Racism, Scientific American Goes to War Against the Truth 

This conservative blog belongs to the new generation of post-creationist critics of Darwinism (but not evolution). They often provide better scientific coverage of evolution than mainstream scientific orgs that are almost prisoners of the Darwin ideology. The charge that critics of Darwin are white supremacists is so outrageous that we cite this article to counter such nonsense. The question of racism in conservative religious groups remains on the table but the larger reality was the inherent racism of Darwin himself and his theory is the non-scandal scandal that has haunted Darwinism from the start.

Given evolution’s racist baggage, you might think the theory’s proponents would be somewhat abashed to accuse the critics of Darwin of “white supremacy.”

Source: On Evolution and Racism, Scientific American Goes to War Against the Truth | Evolution News

The irrationality of darwinism

Discussing evolution with Darwinists is a strange process. The superstitious belief that natural selection produces the evolution of a species is like religious faith. But in reality, the fact remains that science doesn’t have a shred of evidence of species evolution by natural selection. Let me repeat that, NONE. Note that such evidence would have to stretch over millions of years. You would need an awfully large library for the documentation, which could take a lot of time to read. Stand your ground here and don’t get intimidated by the putdowns in place of argument. For academics, I have to shake my head, what to do. If you dissent you can lose your job. Scientists can’t deal with the issue. It needs outsiders.


There is no evidence that natural selection produced a new species in deep time. None. We can’t observe such a process which can occur over long periods. The term is ‘natural selection’ so I will use that. Let me repeat: biologists have NEVER observed the data required to prove Darwin’s theory. These discussions are caught in what is ether the stupidity or the deception of biologists. The question of statistics haunts the false claims of Darwinists. Random mutations are statistically unlikely in the extreme to generate evolution. Produce the evidence for an actual case. There is none.

Notes toward a critical marxism and a new path to postcapitalism

I hope to write a new summary of the issue of critical Marxism discussed here many times and some solutions there. In the process we can add a new approach to world history, and a parallel critique of Darwinism. I seriously doubt that the current Marxist left has any second chances. And yet the world needs a form of socialism or communism in hybrid with democracy. If we examine Marx’s thinking we can see a set of (fatal) mistakes. His stages of production theory says that history will move automatically beyond capitalism. That theory of history just isn’t correct and has the weakness that it labels an unknown as the stage in question. But we can see that unless you get specific a figure like Stalin can simply make up his own definition using the term. And this is what happened with Bolshevism. Ant the result is that critics have a field day with an outcome that is clearly something else but which everyone calls ‘communism’. And amazingly Marxists don’t even protest.

I think the problems with Marxist theory are easy enough to repair, but let’s hope it isn’t oo late. Our approach won’t have, let’s hope, the problem as above: we speak of and eco-socialist ‘democratic market neo-communism’. In this way you cannot call Stalin’s fiasco communism if it doesn’t also have democracy, etc… The goal requires complex specification.
This failsafe approach just might renew interest and enthusiasm about socialism, at a time when a new generation is despairing of capitalism. People will prefer to go over Niagara Falls before they embrace the now dated legacy with its reputation for Stalinist horror.

There is at first zero chance of persuading Marxists of anything. The canon of Marx is almost a form of scripture. But the realization that Marxism will block any path beyond capitalism if it doesn’t pay dues to the legacy, might finally renew trust in a new kind of social politics

As disaster looms closer, perhaps a new audience will emerge.

Continue reading “Notes toward a critical marxism and a new path to postcapitalism”