If the progessives and activist left are so radical let’s see them challenge the core social darwinist ideology of Darwinism…

This is hardly anything we didn’t know twenty years ago, and yet nothing changes. The design argument is somehow transparent but the proponents of ID (intelligent design) have spoiled their case, even as the Darwinists continue their ostrich fantasy of random natural selection. It is a remarkable deadlock. The design argument is very telling but its proponents over and over spoil their case by grafting their thinking onto Biblical theology and that doesn’t work. A true design argument needs a Kantian discipline, and, ironically, a born-again secular humanist framework, something Dawkins-dominated secular humanists could never manage. Here’s the crux: world history shows design and the emergence the Israelite ‘monotheism’ (parallel to Buddhism) a design as in the eonic effect sense but this won’t work with the degenerated theism of later monotheism. Cf. Decoding World History here.
The issue of design being ‘intelligent’ is ambiguous. It could be right, but we can’t prove it, and the standard of proof of the design inference is too loose to be trustworthy, the more so as the already theistic proponents cheat at all points on rigorous arguments.
Meanwhile Marxists, secular humanists, radical activists uphold the whole idiotic Darwinian ideology/pseudo-scientific terrified if they dissent one iota they will be canceled in the ugly domination of the Dawkins/Darwin racket. And it is a racket and the racist imperialist Darwin, more than Spencer, is the real perpetrator of the social darwinist legitimation of racism imperialism and, yet capitalism. We never see how the capitalist brand enforces the ideology via the universities, science orgs and biology pros, but that backdrop is clearly there: social viciousness is all too useful for keeping capitalism in place.

Losers on both sides, and especially sad with the Marxists who follow Marx’s hypocritical embrace of Darwinism after he realized his initial skepticism was going to be a problem, starting with the idiotic Engels who no doubt twisted his arm here. Marx was a coward on the subject he saw through from the beginning.
To be clear: the design argument is strong but you can’t use it to prove the existence of God.
The left’s confused embrace of Darwin shows how it is really party to the ideology it preaches against.

I consider this simple argument as a final nail in the coffin of Darwinian unguided evolution.

Source: Species Pairs: A New Challenge to Darwinists | Evolution News

Headline news? Darwinism is basically over…

Findings could lead to advances in plant breeding, human genetics. A simple roadside weed may hold the key to understanding and predicting DNA mutation, according to new research from University of California, Davis, and the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Germany. The findings

Source: DNA Mutations Are Not Random: New Research Radically Changes Our Understanding of Evolution

Was Marx a hypocrite on the issue of Darwinism….??//Darwinism and Stalinism | Evolution News

Googling ‘natural selection + Stalin’, sure enough, I end up at Evolution News for a useful essay on the connection. But this conservative site would never acknowledge the connection of Darwinism/social Darwinism to capitalism, thus this piece/site while useful is hardly trustworthy.

In any case, our critiques of Marx are from the left and there the connection of Marx and Darwin needs careful examination. I am suspicious that Marx suspected from the first that Darwinism’s natural selection was ideological and then changed his mind, or else dissembled, under the influence of Engels, Marx one of the first to be wary of the rising orthodoxy set into motion by Darwin and his generation and which has produced so many hypocrites who must get on with their academic careers.

But, cf also:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=stalinism+natural+selection

Biographically speaking, reading Darwin’s Origin was seminal in Stalin’s own march toward a godless communism.

Source: Darwinism and Stalinism | Evolution News

The damage done by Darwinism on academic research…

I was too kind to the books cited yesterday on evolution and morality, etc…The failure of these scholars to see the problems with Darwinism vitiates their research, although some of the research remains partially valid in some cases.
Academic culture has been so muddled by Darwinism that once the paradigm falls away the public will never trust zombie professors ever again…

https://redfortyeight.com/2021/12/18/a-warning-to-take-the-eonic-effect-into-account/
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/12/18/the-dawn-of-everything-gets-human-history-wrong-climate-capitalism/
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/12/18/moral-origins-the-evolution-of-virtue-altruism-and-shame-kindle-edition-by-boehm-christopher/
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/12/18/the-creation-of-inequality-google-books/

 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

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/07/is-denying-evolution-a-form-of-white-supremacy/

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…