Evolution as a necessary socio-political creation story

[J_B_]

However, we need to be careful to discern where modern science proffers itself as knowledge but is, in fact, a "philosophy" from those instances where it is, as a practice of human inquiry, actually elucidating our understanding of the physical world.

A good point, but one that's hard to keep in the fore. As I read on this topic, it all makes sense in the moment, but then tends to slip through my fingers like water as time passes. It becomes very difficult to point out what exactly is different about the way we think now versus the way they thought then.

 

[BobRyan]

There's some excellent academic work on this, specifically Rhetorical Darwinism by Thomas Lessl.

In that book he starts with Francis Bacon and his efforts (and successes) to change the fundamentals of intellectual thought to a scientific mode, and then goes on to show a similar path via Thomas Huxley with Darwinism whereby it has become a fundamental aspect of all modern thought.

Huxley is a good example of agnostic that found nervana in darwinian evolution.

Thomas Huxley

—Thomas Huxley debating with a Bishop who didn't understand evolution [1] Thomas Huxley was a 19th Century naturalist, a friend of Charles Darwin and the inventor of the term Agnostic. Huxley believed in the Theory of Evolution by Natural selection and as a powerful debater helped promote...

atheism.fandom.com

"Thomas Huxley was a 19th Century naturalist, a friend of Charles Darwin and the inventor of the term Agnostic. Huxley believed in the Theory of Evolution by Natural selection and as a powerful debater helped promote evolution"

 

[J_B_]

Huxley is a good example of agnostic that found nervana in darwinian evolution.

That's not the way Lessl portrays him. He argues against the "Darwin's bulldog" label, showing how Huxley had serious issues with Darwinism. His reasons for being an aggressive, outspoken advocate in public were more subtle.

 

[BobRyan]

That's not the way Lessl portrays him. He argues against the "Darwin's bulldog" label, showing how Huxley had serious issues with Darwinism. His reasons for being an aggressive, outspoken advocate in public were more subtle.

I am not claiming that his devotion was to Darwin as an agnostic -- It looks like it was to evolution.

"writes Richard Dawkins, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”.

More than one atheist/agnostic noticed it.

Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia

Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895)

embryo.asu.edu

"In 1863, three years after the debate with Wilberforce, Huxley became Hunterian Professor at the Royal College of Surgeons, and he published his first book, Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature. Huxley used research from embryology, paleontology, and comparative anatomy to demonstrate the evolutionary relationship between humans and apes."

 

[lifepsyop]

There's some excellent academic work on this, specifically Rhetorical Darwinism by Thomas Lessl.

In that book he starts with Francis Bacon and his efforts (and successes) to change the fundamentals of intellectual thought to a scientific mode, and then goes on to show a similar path via Thomas Huxley with Darwinism whereby it has become a fundamental aspect of all modern thought.

thanks for the link

with Francis Bacon, I always think of both his "Great Instauration" project, whereby all claims to knowledge were to be refined through the lens of empiricism, effectively redefining what is considered actual knowledge and demoting everything else... and also his "New Atlantis" which was the grand scientific utopia which would result. He seems to be a high priest of the religion of enlightenment and also a major prophet/architect of the modern world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A good point, but one that's hard to keep in the fore. As I read on this topic, it all makes sense in the moment, but then tends to slip through my fingers like water as time passes. It becomes very difficult to point out what exactly is different about the way we think now versus the way they thought then.

Right. Which is why we academically take each thinker from each era individually and study his/her thoughts (which are extant in their writings) so we can attempt to discern the interrogatives implied in their ideations. And we do this whether we're studying Aristotle or Lucretius, Copernicus, Newton, or Charles Darwin. Or whoever.

As far as what's already citable today where Evolution as a "philosophical outlook" is conceptualized on the one hand, and AS the Theory of Evolution is theorized and its evidences evaluated by various scientists on the other, we can also look at each thinker on a case by case basis and compare their thoughts, arguments, epistemology and methods. This is the same case for how we handle the Bible as well as we all (i.e. various Christians in their respective denominations and traditions) attempt to sort out and evaluate the merits of the hermeneutical methods and spiritual veracity of one Christian theology over and against another.

Sure, it's difficult and requires a lot of time to do so to make these comparisons, but it's not impossible.

 

[J_B_]

I am not claiming that his devotion was to Darwin as an agnostic -- It looks like it was to evolution.

Yes. Huxley coined the term "agnostic". He was committed to evolution, and Darwin was a friend, but he wasn't all that committed to Darwinism. That was my only point. People are much more complex than is typically acknowledged in Internet forums.

In the book Lessl emphasizes the importance of patronage, and tries to show this was both Bacon's & Huxley's concern. In current debates about evolution, supporters tend to trumpet the success of evolution as inevitable, but Lessl argues this is not the case - that despite what idealists hope for, science doesn't proceed without money ... patronage. While Bacon was focused on getting the church to accept science in order to win church patronage, Huxley was focused on breaking the hold of the church and setting up secular means of patronage. Huxley saw the church as stifling free inquiry. He was not championing Darwin so much because he thought he was right, but because it was an example of free inquiry and how it should work.

 

[J_B_]

thanks for the link

with Francis Bacon, I always think of both his "Great Instauration" project, whereby all claims to knowledge were to be refined through the lens of empiricism, effectively redefining what is considered actual knowledge and demoting everything else... and also his "New Atlantis" which was the grand scientific utopia which would result. He seems to be a high priest of the religion of enlightenment and also a major prophet/architect of the modern world.

Mmm, kinda. I understand Bacon to be a devout believer. He did indeed promote empiricism, but I think there were unintended consequences that would appall him. Again, in the book (and in other sources I've read), Christians of the time saw science as a discovery of God's Providence. It was later replaced with the idea of humanistic Progress. I keep spouting references, but I can't help it. A book along the lines of coopting Christianity in the U.S. is Ministers of Reform by Robert Crunden.

 

[J_B_]

Sure, it's difficult and requires a lot of time to do so to make these comparisons, but it's not impossible.

Indeed, and I enjoy it ... but aging occurs. I recently moved, and in reorganizing my library in the new house found I have over 500 books, which doesn't include those I read and never owned. For some of them my reaction was, "Oh. I forgot I had that." I'm getting to that place where I've forgotten more than I remember.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Indeed, and I enjoy it ... but aging occurs. I recently moved, and in reorganizing my library in the new house found I have over 500 books, which doesn't include those I read and never owned. For some of them my reaction was, "Oh. I forgot I had that." I'm getting to that place where I've forgotten more than I remember.

Yeah, I'm getting closer to that time as well. ...for some reason Sisyphus keeps coming to mind as I try to corral everything.

 

[lifepsyop]

Mmm, kinda. I understand Bacon to be a devout believer. He did indeed promote empiricism, but I think there were unintended consequences that would appall him. Again, in the book (and in other sources I've read), Christians of the time saw science as a discovery of God's Providence. It was later replaced with the idea of humanistic Progress. I keep spouting references, but I can't help it. A book along the lines of coopting Christianity in the U.S. is Ministers of Reform by Robert Crunden.

I don't doubt he was a believer. And the professing Christians and Deists that followed him were believers in a supreme being as well, but the idea of God came to be more in reference to an unknown deity presiding over all of nature that one perceived through scientific enlightenment, rather than being known from revealed religion (scripture), which became more and more regarded as myth rather than divine revelation. Evolution came to be seen as the new creation story, a sacred belief in the true workings of the creator, as revealed by enlightened man. However, 'enlightened man' could not possibly view reality any other way after boxing himself in to methodological naturalism as the only pathway to knowledge.

 

[J_B_]

I don't doubt he was a believer. And the professing Christians and Deists that followed him were believers in a supreme being as well, but the idea of God came to be more in reference to an unknown deity presiding over all of nature that one perceived through scientific enlightenment, rather than being known from revealed religion (scripture), which became more and more regarded as myth rather than divine revelation. Evolution came to be seen as the new creation story, a sacred belief in the true workings of the creator, as revealed by enlightened man. However, 'enlightened man' could not possibly view reality any other way after boxing himself in to methodological naturalism as the only pathway to knowledge.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I was simply saying I wouldn't credit someone for something that was accidental and unintended. I suppose you can blame them for a lack of foresight, but I wouldn't credit them.

 

[The Barbarian]

The teaching of Evolution is a 'rationalizing' of world history that was a necessary requirement of post-Enlightenment / modern society.

I don't see Christian belief as "irrational." It's unscientific. But one has to avoid equating "unscientific" with "irrational." It's perfectly rational to be unscientific where it is reasonable to be so. I am often unscientific myself. You've locked yourself into a closet here.

All of mass society was being organized on the basis of rational social science. 'Reason' was to replace 'Dogma' in every facet of social planning, from the political technology of government, to the economy, social relations, and most importantly public education. The modern world was to be an enlightened scientific society and so all bodies of knowledge and understanding had to be filtered through an epistemological bottleneck of rationalism and empiricism and methodological naturalism. In the Age of Enlightenment, this was the new intellectual order of the day.

Maybe some saw it that way, but of course few (if any) scientists did. Darwin himself rejected that idea. Again, if one understands science and what it is, your idea is seen as absurd.

What this means is that a teaching form of Evolution was necessarily required as an interpretation of historical origins.

Of species. People who don't know what Darwin's theory is, try to make it about the origin of life, or the Big Bang or whatever scares them. But they are wrong.

It had to be an Evolutionary history and there was simply no room for debate on this issue.

That's wrong, too. Until the 20th century and the rediscovery of Mendel's work in genetics, Darwin's theory had a lot of scientists doubting it. Even the great Louis Agassiz, in the 20th century, was anti-Darwinian. Then Morgan showed how genes work, and that explained how new traits could be established in a population. After that, no world-class biologist doubted that Darwin's theory is essentially correct.

This is because the belief in Evolution is essentially applied historical rationalism; the belief that events progress in an orderly way based on uniform laws of nature. Before any of the particulars of Evolution were known, it was already concluded that world history must be a 'rational' history; a history that unfolded in a methodically natural way. Under the philosophical rules of Enlightenment, there was simply no other option.

In fact, the theory points out that contingency is an essential part of evolution. Litopterns and horses or thylacines and wolves may look alike because they evolved in the same kind of environments, but the details are entirely different. That's the contingency; mutations arrive randomly and the same solutions to selective pressures can result in very different means to the solutions.

The other important thing about the teaching of Evolution, is that, like all other aspects of a mass industrial society, it requires the administration and organization of a managerial class of 'experts' to interpret and promote it to mass society.

Sort of like medicine and physics depend on "the administration and organization of a managerial class of experts to interpret it and promote it to mass society." You think that's surprising?

The teaching of Evolution makes an "enlightened" managerial elite the gatekeepers of reality for a modern society. Just as modern society is said to be organized on the highest principles of social-science and enlightened political technology of liberal democracy.

If you think so, you don't live in the same society the rest of us do.

Evolution requires the management of a widespread academic, scientific, and media bureaucracy, the same type of bureaucracy necessary for promoting liberal democratic ideology (i.e., the ideology that rejects any source of authority apart from that socio-political bureaucracy)

Hmmm... it's been days since I've seen anything about evolution on television, in my local paper, or head about it on radios stations. A whole lot of days. Must be very different where you live.

Evolution, too, meets the needs of a pluralistic secular state. Evolution is a belief that can be syncretized with Christianity, eastern religion, masonic Deism, and Atheism.

Yeah, plumbing is like that too. All those different beliefs are consistent with plumbing. For the same reason.

It is a creation story for all faiths,

It's not a creation story at all. As you say, it is consistent with Christianity (and pretty much any other belief) because (like plumbing and physics) it doesn't have any metaphysical aspects.

and thus the best suited historical narrative for an inclusive modern liberal democracy.

Or any other society above the level of neolithic.

As for the actual science of Evolution. These are distantly secondary considerations to the primary political and philosophical *requirement* that Evolution be taught as the official origins story within a modern liberal society.

You're thinking of the creationist fairy tale version of evolution. It is a political necessity for creationists, who cannot deal with the real one used by scientists.

This is why, as one scientist stated:

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!”​

​

Which is, as you learned earlier, nonsense. There are even today, various critiques of Darwinian theory. Indeed, some of Darwin's ideas, such as the heritability of acquired traits, have been refuted. What sort of "scientist" would not know that? Having lost the scientific argument long ago, creationists have retreated into making up all sorts of superstitious nonsense about science being a religion or paganism, or whatever.

This is also why younger generations will continue to be taught the social myth that Evolution was simply the result of disinterested scientists who only cared about following the facts.

That's another superstition creationists have about science. College texts often point out that science is affected by the societies in which if has formed, but that most advances in science have been by those who were able to look past social assumptions and see facts for what they are.

Your most telling admission of creationism is here:

We have to be raised up inside the ideology and can never be allowed to see it from the outside.

This is why creationists loath science and misrepresent it and in their portrayals. They hate it because it is incompatible with their modern ideology. When one looks outside the creationist ideology, they are likely to accept the facts and cease to be creationists.

 

[lifepsyop]

Maybe some saw it that way, but of course few (if any) scientists did. Darwin himself rejected that idea. Again, if one understands science and what it is, your idea is seen as absurd.

Very little of any of this has to do with science. It's much more to do with political ideology. Most people who promote Evolution don't understand the first thing about its specific scientific claims, but they immediately recognize the ideological utility of it, i.e. "Shut up you Bible-thumpers and trust the experts!"

People who don't know what Darwin's theory is, try to make it about the origin of life, or the Big Bang or whatever scares them. But they are wrong.

From what I gather from your posts, this is much more a personal problem of yours of being unable distinguish a broader Evolutionary worldview from Darwinism specifically. Mainstream scientists all over the world are discussing the Evolution of all aspects of the universe every day. There are thousands and thousands of journal articles on these things. I'm sorry you have such a problem with that.

Look here's a book "Origins: Fourteen Billion years of Cosmic Evolution" by Neil Degrasse Tyson. I'm told he's a fairly popular voice in the science world.

That's wrong, too. Until the 20th century and the rediscovery of Mendel's work in genetics, Darwin's theory had a lot of scientists doubting it. Even the great Louis Agassiz, in the 20th century, was anti-Darwinian. Then Morgan showed how genes work, and that explained how new traits could be established in a population.

You might have a point if Evolution existed in a 19th century Darwinian vacuum, but of course it doesn't. His own grandfather was a committed believer in an Evolutionary life history before Charles was even born, and of course the belief goes back much further than that.

After that, no world-class biologist doubted that Darwin's theory is essentially correct.

Because Darwin didn't really offer anything but a tautology. "That which survives, survives."

Sort of like medicine and physics depend on "the administration and organization of a managerial class of experts to interpret it and promote it to mass society." You think that's surprising?

Not at all, and that was the point. All institutions and social relations are to be folded into the authority of the managerial class. Next up is the sexualization of children, and our current institutional leaders in Medicine are assuring us it is completely normal and healthy for children to explore the idea of alternating their genders. And if someone has a problem with this then they just don't understand science, of course.

Yeah, plumbing is like that too. All those different beliefs are consistent with plumbing. For the same reason.

Isn't it funny how universally useful knowledge of plumbing is, or any number of practical everyday skills, and yet educators believe it's far more important for every young person to learn in detail how they evolved from fish hundreds of millions of years ago. Why is it so important for young people to learn that?

It's not a creation story at all. As you say, it is consistent with Christianity (and pretty much any other belief) because (like plumbing and physics) it doesn't have any metaphysical aspects.

What a strange thing to say.

The creation story of Evolution is entirely metaphysical. It is metaphysical naturalism applied to world history, the belief that world history is the product of orderly natural historical processes and events.

You can apply the same metaphysical naturalism to the book of Exodus and conclude that it is a book of mythology, because there are so many recorded events that require the suspension of orderly natural historical processes. And of course, many people claim that view is entirely consistent with Christianity as well.

And that is why it's such an important teaching for a modern mass secular society. It is a secularized version of world history removed from any authority of a particular text, and placed in the proper authority of an enlightened managerial class which, for this reason, finds it deeply important that each young person be taught that they evolved from fish hundreds of millions of years ago.

Or any other society above the level of neolithic.

It's funny because of how obviously useless a belief in Evolution is to the functioning of society in terms of practical knowledge of laypeople, and yet this creation story of how the world supposedly evolved over hundreds of millions of years is set forth in curriculum by modern educators as a subject of big importance for every student to meditate on.

And that is because the point of modern education is not useful knowledge, but inculcation of ideology. The ideology being: "stop seeking authority from that book and put it where it belongs, with us, the experts"

Which is, as you learned earlier, nonsense. There are even today, various critiques of Darwinian theory. Indeed, some of Darwin's ideas, such as the heritability of acquired traits, have been refuted. What sort of "scientist" would not know that? Having lost the scientific argument long ago, creationists have retreated into making up all sorts of superstitious nonsense about science being a religion or paganism, or whatever.

Well, to be fair, Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy was far more entrenched in the 1990's when that statement was made than it is today, and the Darwinian priesthood did become easily enraged whenever it was even slightly questioned. You yourself obviously still associate the name Darwin with an unquestionable dogma concerning all of life history, so aren't you basically in agreement with the quoted statement?

Of course, in reality, the sacred shrine of Darwin could topple tomorrow, and it would have little effect on the underlying philosophical commitment to Evolution, which existed long before his particular thesis came out.

And there are really very little scientific arguments being had on either side. Like Creationists, Evolutionists refuse to surrender a fundamental philosophical commitment, that being methodological naturalism as the only acceptable guide to an interpretation of history.

 

[The Barbarian]

Very little of any of this has to do with science.

True. It's much more to do with political ideology. Most people who fear and hate evolution don't understand the first thing about its specific scientific claims, but they immediately recognize the ideological utility of it, i.e. 'you're going to hell because you're an evolutionist!"

Like some militant atheists, their goal is to make faith and science incompatible.

 

[The Barbarian]

From what I gather from your posts, this is much more a personal problem of yours of being unable distinguish a broader Evolutionary worldview from Darwinism specifically.

Well, let's check your assumptions. Name me one world-class biologist who says that evolutionary theory is about the origin life or the Big Bang or plate tectonics or whatever else disturbs you. We'll be waiting to see what you have. Don't forget.

I gather "evolutionary worldview" is just a phrase you use for science. But we'll know for sure when we get your answer.

Look here's a book "Origins: Fourteen Billion years of Cosmic Evolution" by Neil Degrasse Tyson. I'm told he's a fairly popular voice in the science world.

Cosmic evolution is not biological evolution. Evolution is just a word for change. Darwin didn't like it much and it appears only once in his book. If this is the source of your confusion, use Darwin's more specific term; "descent with modification."

That's wrong, too. Until the 20th century and the rediscovery of Mendel's work in genetics, Darwin's theory had a lot of scientists doubting it. Even the great Louis Agassiz, in the 20th century, was anti-Darwinian. Then Morgan showed how genes work, and that explained how new traits could be established in a population.

You might have a point if Evolution existed in a 19th century Darwinian vacuum,

No,, it would have happened regardless of 19th century expectations. The data merely showed that Darwin was correct in the way new species evolve, and after that was cleared up, no biologist of any consequence doubted that it was correct. It was evidence not some imaginary zeitgeist that won over virtually all scientists.

Because Darwin didn't really offer anything but a tautology. "That which survives, survives."

No, that's wrong, too. As you learned, Darwinian theory makes many predictions about what we will find. And in fact, those predictions have been repeatedly confirmed. Would you like me to show you some more of those? As you probably know, Karl Popper, on examining evolutionary theory showed that even from his falsibility criterion, Darwinian theory is not a tautology. Would you like me to show you that?

Not at all, and that was the point. All institutions and social relations are to be folded into the authority of the managerial class...(stuff about sexualizing children and transgenderism)

You're losing focus. That's not what evolutionary theory is about. Try to stay with the discussion. It's frustrating that none of us can know everything known by man. But that's how it works. I get on an airplane, with assurance that it isn't going to fall apart, and the pilot is competent. Because we have people to check on those things, and I have no way of doing it myself.

It's funny because of how obviously useless a belief in Evolution is to the functioning of society in terms of practical knowledge of laypeople,

Except for antibiotic protocols, for example. But it really isn't something we have to deal with daily. Which is all the stranger, given the frenetic anger we see from some creationists about it. Public policy does occasionally require an understanding of how it works, in environmental issues and public health. We might never have to consider the orbit of Mercury in our daily lives, but a decent education provides students with an idea of how gravity and inertia makes the whole thing work. And that's important. Ignorance kills, as the pandemic demonstrated.

And that is because the point of modern education is not useful knowledge, but inculcation of ideology.

I'm really old, but it's always interesting to me how something I thought I'd never use, comes up useful at odd times. Science, of course, has no ideology other than that assumption that the universe is consistent and knowable. So far, it's held up very well.

The ideology being: "stop seeking authority from that book and put it where it belongs, with us, the experts"

People who say that are entirely ignorant of the way science works. If you were right, the arguments of a meteorologist would never have persuaded the expert geologists as to plate tectonics. And yet, in my lifetime, when Wegener's predictions were validated and a mechanism for his continental drift theory was found, the entire field changed in just a few years.

Fortunately, you are wrong, and the "experts" admitted that Wegener had it right. Because the data was on his side.

There are even today, various critiques of Darwinian theory. Indeed, some of Darwin's ideas, such as the heritability of acquired traits, have been refuted. What sort of "scientist" would not know that? Having lost the scientific argument long ago, creationists have retreated into making up all sorts of superstitious nonsense about science being a religion or paganism, or whatever.

Well, to be fair, Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy was far more entrenched in the 1990's when that statement was made than it is today, and the Darwinian priesthood did become easily enraged whenever it was even slightly questioned.

If you think so, you don't know much about science. For example, the 1990s saw challenges like neutral evolution, punctuated equilibrium, epigenetic changes and so on. Some of them failed for lack of evidence, and others were confirmed by subsequent investigation and like genetics, were incorporated into the theory.

You yourself obviously still associate the name Darwin with an unquestionable dogma concerning all of life history,

You're still confused about Darwin. I just showed you that he was wrong about heritance of acquired characteristics. You are so entrenched in your dogma, you just ignore anything that doesn't fit your new faith.

Of course, in reality, the sacred shrine of Darwin could topple tomorrow, and it would have little effect on the underlying philosophical commitment to Evolution, which existed long before his particular thesis came out.

You'd be a lot more effective fighting science, if you understood it better. It is true that for a very long time men and women had noticed that some kind of biological change must have happened. Darwin's great discovery was why it happens, and his documentation of the data supporting that fact.

 

[stevevw]

The teaching of Evolution is a 'rationalizing' of world history that was a necessary requirement of post-Enlightenment / modern society.

All of mass society was being organized on the basis of rational social science. 'Reason' was to replace 'Dogma' in every facet of social planning, from the political technology of government, to the economy, social relations, and most importantly public education. The modern world was to be an enlightened scientific society and so all bodies of knowledge and understanding had to be filtered through an epistemological bottleneck of rationalism and empiricism and methodological naturalism. In the Age of Enlightenment, this was the new intellectual order of the day.

What this means is that a teaching form of Evolution was necessarily required as an interpretation of historical origins. It had to be an Evolutionary history and there was simply no room for debate on this issue. This is because the belief in Evolution is essentially applied historical rationalism; the belief that events progress in an orderly way based on uniform laws of nature. Before any of the particulars of Evolution were known, it was already concluded that world history must be a 'rational' history; a history that unfolded in a methodically natural way. Under the philosophical rules of Enlightenment, there was simply no other option.

The other important thing about the teaching of Evolution, is that, like all other aspects of a mass industrial society, it requires the administration and organization of a managerial class of 'experts' to interpret and promote it to mass society. The teaching of Evolution makes an "enlightened" managerial elite the gatekeepers of reality for a modern society. Just as modern society is said to be organized on the highest principles of social-science and enlightened political technology of liberal democracy. Evolution requires the management of a widespread academic, scientific, and media bureaucracy, the same type of bureaucracy necessary for promoting liberal democratic ideology (i.e., the ideology that rejects any source of authority apart from that socio-political bureaucracy)

Evolution, too, meets the needs of a pluralistic secular state. Evolution is a belief that can be syncretized with Christianity, eastern religion, masonic Deism, and Atheism. It is a creation story for all faiths, and thus the best suited historical narrative for an inclusive modern liberal democracy.


As for the actual science of Evolution. These are distantly secondary considerations to the primary political and philosophical *requirement* that Evolution be taught as the official origins story within a modern liberal society. It is a political necessity.


This is why, as one scientist stated:

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!”​

This is because when you question Evolution, you are really tapping into an ideology that lies at the heart of the age of Enlightenment and modern society itself. We are ruled by this ideology and this ideology is hammered into us by a mass media from the cradle to the grave. Like the riot at Ephesus in Acts 19 and the Cult of Artemis , the entire mystical order of society, and especially its elite priesthood class, is threatened when you target its central ideology. This is why so many people seem to go crazy when they detect even the slightest hint of dissent from a belief in Evolution. There is an entire managerial class throughout all sectors of society who instinctively recognize the belief in Evolution as a kind of mystical cornerstone to their entire ideological worldview.

This is also why younger generations will continue to be taught the social myth that Evolution was simply the result of disinterested scientists who only cared about following the facts. We have to be raised up inside the ideology and can never be allowed to see it from the outside. This is why creationists are so particularly loathed in society and in their portrayals in mass media... whether they realize it or not, they are poking at the heart of modern ideology.

In other words scientific materialism has become the new religion of the 21st century.

 

[The Barbarian]

In other words scientific materialism has become the new religion of the 21st century.

"Scientific materialism" is an oxymoron. Anyone who knew what those two words actually mean, would not use that term.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.

Materialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But if we look at the meta-studies, if we ask, what is the benefit of studying the paranormal versus ignoring it? We find the curious phenomenon that the Enlightenment advanced precisely where it ignored the paranormal. Thus it would seem that studying the paranormal wasn’t merely a distraction, but a degradation of science.

Why science can’t study the supernatural – A physicist’s view | Uncommon Descent

It can't be a religion for the same reason creationism and ID can't be science.

 

[lifepsyop]

Except for antibiotic protocols, for example. But it really isn't something we have to deal with daily. Which is all the stranger, given the frenetic anger we see from some creationists about it. Public policy does occasionally require an understanding of how it works, in environmental issues and public health. We might never have to consider the orbit of Mercury in our daily lives, but a decent education provides students with an idea of how gravity and inertia makes the whole thing work. And that's important. Ignorance kills, as the pandemic demonstrated.

One can detect a sense of the ideological undertone in your words here, which is getting us back on topic with the OP. The suggestion of an extreme crisis at the thought of the public unsubscribing from a belief in evolution. The unconscious association of a doomsday event with the non-belief in evolution. The darkness of ignorance overcoming the enlightenment.

The comical argument is that our institutions of learning would crumble to the ground without a general belief in evolution. If the public is no longer taught that they evolved from slime then we'll be back in the stone-age clubbing each other with bones in no time. There would be no more engineers. How could we even have running water or electricity if people aren't taught that they evolved from sea-sponges a half billion years ago? We wouldn't even know how to use a microscope anymore... maybe we'd just start using laboratory equipment to crack open coconut shells or something. Without the epiphany that our great grandparents are some lobe-finned fish buried in 400-million-year-old rock layers, nothing would make sense anymore. Society would collapse!

Even the most diehard atheists probably know that idea is a joke. On a practical level, general society knowing nothing about the idea of universal common ancestry would have little effect on anything. The real crisis would be political and ideological. In fact, it would upset an entire political and ideological caste system that can be boiled down to the meme of "trust the experts".

Nobody really cares if the public actually understands the theory of evolution... all that matters is that they internalize some silly cartoon image of a fish turning into a monkey into a human. That visual meme is something that fundamentally defines modern political power, and places a managerial class of experts as the gatekeepers of what reality is and how mass society should constantly defer to their enlightened knowledge in order to preserve right and good social order.

"Trust the science" is one of the most oft invoked phrases by the same sorts of political actors who would be happy to make it a hate-crime for parents to discourage their children from pursuing sex-change operations.

"Science", like "Democracy", is really just a magical word for preserving and advancing political power.

Political orders require a creation myth that justifies their power. That is what makes the public's belief in Evolution so important. The idea that nobody really understood humanity's true origins, or the true nature of reality itself, until this enlightened class overthrew the old political order and illuminated the darkened masses with the light of science. It is a foundational myth of a technocracy. It is no wonder that modern academic institutions keep "finding evidence" for the very thing that guarantees their political power, is it?

 

[lifepsyop]

In other words scientific materialism has become the new religion of the 21st century.

Not so much a commitment to materialism. Atheism I think is a sort of red herring. These ideologues usually believe in a god, or a supreme being, or divine essence, behind all of nature, and they believe the will or providence of this divine essence manifests through human reason. This the mythos surrounding the "age of enlightenment" where men learned to set aside the superstitious dogma of scripture and seek true divinity through the power of their own reasoning. Thus the will of god is expressed in the creation of a new secular order ruled by an enlightened humanity.

History itself is viewed as a story of divinely guided progress of the mystical energy of the universe becoming conscious of itself in the enlightened mind of man. Today, Neil deGrasse Tyson preaches sermons about it. In the 19th century Hegel wrote a book about it "The Phenomenology of Spirit", about the world coming of age. When pundits and politicians today speak of being "on the right side of history" they are referencing this type of "new religion" of human progress.

Evolution is important as a creation mythos because it places humanity on the cusp of this historical transition. Enlightenment is raising them up out of the animalistic state of nature. Humanity is transcending with science and sacred democracy.