These days, intellectuals, and those who play being intellectual on TV (coff Bill Nye coff Neil degrasse Tyson), uniformly state that they “believe in evolution”. If taken literally, this is a problematic statement to a real scientist, because belief and the scientific method are polar opposites, but it’s probably not a bad shorthand for “The theory of evolution, proposed by Darwin and revised and extended in the subsequent century and a half, does a good job of explaining observations of nature and predicting future events”. The interesting thing is that said intellectuals usually use their “belief” in evolution to mock the religious and their unscientific beliefs in Creationism or Intelligent Design without considering that many deeply religious people both currently “believe in evolution” (in the sense above) and see no conflict between it and their religious beliefs (and in some respects both Creationists and ID believers also believe in evolution, they just take issue with it as the sole cause of all life on earth)

Yet many of the same intellectuals despise free markets and seem to consider them to be inferior to centrally planned societies where markets have a very limited role. This is amusing, in part, because Darwin’s thoughts on Evolution clearly derived from reading Malthus, Adam Smith, and other economists (well worth reading the link even though it’s fairly long). The link also points out that respected modern scientists, such as Steven Jay Gould, see parallels between evolution/natural selection and free market economics. The fact that scientists see such a link is a good thing and it should be concerning when their hangers on are unable to do likewise.

Indeed many of the arguments made (validly) against intelligent design apply equally well to those who seek to plan economies and curtail free markets. The big difference is that the ID believers also believe in a deity who is infallible, omnipotent and omniscient. The equivalent for the anti-free market lot are, presumably, the central bankers and bureaucrats regulating the trade of nations. However the equivalence founders on the rocks of the requirements for omnipotence and omniscience – omniscient central bankers and omnipotent bureaucrats have never been observed in real life, although many extremely fallible ones have.

Furthermore many of the so-called progressive “believers in Evolution” are utterly opposed to concepts of freedom of opinion when it comes to debate or speech in general, which is ipso facto going to reduce the prospects for actual progress. Per enlightenment philosphers such as Hegel (though not just him) a classic debate or argument – a dialectic – has: a thesis, which states a particular point of view; an antithesis, which negates it; and then the synthesis that combines the best of both into a new proposition. This is how thoughts and philosophies evolve, how science works via the scientific method, and generally speaking how negotiations in politics and trade work. Yet, as we have seen with “No platforming”, safe spaces and so on, the so-called progressive believers in biological evolution are unable to contemplate the possibility that they might be wrong or that others might have a valid point of view. This is yet another indication that these “believers in science” are simply substituting a deity they call “Science” or “Progress” for one from a more conventional religion. They don’t obey the commandments of their religion any more than most of the believers of any other religion but they happily coat themselves in the reflected glory of the Enlightenment and Scientific Enquiry without bothering to see if they actually subscribe to the key tenets of those concepts.

Of course it isn’t just free markets or free speech they have problems with. They actually have problems with lots of science and even with the “evolution” that they claim to believe in. Progressive ideology claims that we are all alike in terms of potential and that the difference in outcomes is purely due to racism/sexism/patriarchal privilege etc. This is, so course, completely nuts as any unbiased observer of humanity must notice. While it is true that, say, some women are physically stronger/faster than nearly all men there is no point where more women are stronger/faster than men.

In fact my observation is that someone who is in the top 10% of men for a particular event will beat all but a handful of women at the same event (and in fact usually it’s more like anyone in the top 20%). This applies to endurance sports like running and cycling (which is where I have observed it) as well as weight-lifting, tennis and any other sport that requires more strength than accuracy. Trivially one notices that there is also a drastic difference in the ethnic origins of the champions of different sports – there are very few world-ranked Caucasian sprinters for example while almost all of the champions sprinters are actually genetically West African to a significant degree. And so on.

Yet despite this, the very concept that there might be a genetic reason for differences in intellectual capacity, let alone desires, is apparently anathema. Hence the lunatic desire to see every single salaried prestigious profession consist, at all levels, of workers distributed according to the overall population – black, white, asian, male, female, gay, etc. Oddly however this desire that all sorts be evenly represented does not seem to apply to less prestigious jobs nor do the progressives give much respect to those who perform such labors even though they’d quite literally die without them  (I saw a fascinating article on a friend’s FB feed that may explain this a bit). You’d think people who believed in evolution would grasp the concept of specialization if only from admiring ant colonies with their totalitarian matriarchal rule…

Of course it could be that specialization tends to lead right back to economics and the free market and we know they reject that.