Sometimes I'm amazed at what mere liberals in Bolshie's clothing some of my Marxist comrades are. Every so often, I get a communication from some red-hot Red like the following:
Subject: 46 percent of Americans think that the earth is less than 10, 000 years oldHmmm. Dunno. Cromwell & Co did pretty well, though they were great Bible readers.
> A reminder that the revolution is not around the corner.
Evolution (and 'science' generally; not to mention 'progress') are liberal fetishes, really, and have nothing to do with the revolutionary disposition. In fact I would argue that caring deeply about whether or not people believe in these idols of the caste is more reactionary than otherwise; it insists upon a fideistic acquiescence to expert opinion. Very middle-class, really.
I'm always amused, in talking with people for whom belief in evolution is a big totem, to discover how little they actually know about the subject, in most cases. Reference to the problematic character of ideas like 'inclusive fitness' usually draw a very blank stare.
Evolution as taught in the high schools of this broad land is a deeply vulgar doctrine -- so vulgar it makes vulgar Marxism look relatively refined. It leaves people with a few catch phrases -- like 'survival of the fittest', with its muffled implicit justification for meritocracy and its theodicy of 'competition' -- and a vague belief that Nature labors under a need to optimize; that mammals represent an improvement on molluscs, and so on. It's a kind of secular religion, with rather clear political implications, and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual science of evolutionary biology, which like all good science abounds in quandaries, paradoxes, and perplexities in proportion to the immense value of its fundamental insights.