The left’s fetish for Darwinian evolution seems to me to be cover for the radically anti-empirical approach to public policy the left exhibits: loudly call your opponents “anti-science” when your own program would be gutted by applying the scientific method to questions actually at issue in political debate.
In point of fact, a great many policy positions the left takes run contrary to what a real believer in Darwinian evolution would believe: They would have us believe that human populations which subsisted in radically different environments for tens of thousands of years will exhibit no measurable differences in anything other than skin, hair and eye color, and thus any disparities in career choices or social outcomes must be the result of invidious discrimination. Likewise, they have no regard for the Darwinian basis of the institution of marriage: that human young are optimally reared by those most genetically similar to them (a consequence of the most radically materialistic explication of Darwinism, the “selfish-gene theory”) with their absurd push for “gay marriage” which misunderstands marriage as nothing more than a “celebration” of at best romantic love at worst lust called “love”.
Darwinism serves the left not as a scientific theory actually informing how they understand the world, but as a shibboleth for anti-Christianity.
“Darwinism serves the left not as a scientific theory actually informing how they understand the world, but as a shibboleth for anti-Christianity.”
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
In many respects, you are correct. But I would hate to think that the only alternative to "Darwinism" is young earth creationism. Because I am a Christian who finds the latter to be ridiculous.