COVIDISM, DARWINISM AND DESIGN

EPIGRAPH

'O Lord, deliver me from the man of excellent intention and impure heart...
Preserve me from the enemy who has something to gain: and from the friend who has something to lose....
..And the others run about like dogs, full of enterprise, sniffing and barking....
They write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness..'

- T. S. Eliot (Choruses from the Rock)

The pandemic affected us all.

With the possible exception of certain primitive tribes/communities in godforsaken parts of the world, the adverse effects of the pandemic on society, at varying degrees resulted apart from the direct biological consequences produced by the disease-causing virus. This essay is an attempt to make sense of it.

TO OR NOT TO DESIGN

The secondary or ‘side effects’ effects of the viral outbreak were felt most strongly in parts of the world where masks, lock-downs and vaccine mandates were rigorously imposed. This method of dealing with the virus was imposed generally without considering its immediate and long-term effects. Which in the aftermath of the pandemic era has led to the growing perception that we, possibly the majority of the citizenry, were either hard done by short-sighted leadership of elected representatives and their political appointees, or worse were exploited by a cabal of pharmaceutical bigwigs and their political enablers/benefactors in the halls of power.

In the United States, and possibly elsewhere, stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry and government were the beneficiaries of the push for mass vaccinations. With the funding for the jabs made possible by the money-printing powers of the Fed, with the long-term costs of such inflationary policies being laid on the shoulders of the already victimized (in the minds of many) masses. The tens of millions, who are now left to shoulder the economic burden that is mounted upon the trillions of dollars of existing public debt, along with rising prices to boot ⁽¹⁾.

In late 2022 Reuters reported that new rules drafted by the World Health Organization (WHO) now require major drug companies to reveal their workings with governments. Since many of the deals made by governments with pharmaceutical companies, related to the funding of vaccine development and its administration were kept confidential. But no longer. As the article states, such closed-door deal-making gave “little scope to hold drug makers accountable” ⁽²⁾.

‘Accountability’. A word that went missing once the pandemic craze fizzled out. When one ponders the origins, nature, and spread of COVID-19, followed by the type of public (government) response it produced; one wonders how things could have been if the crisis had been handled differently. That is with a lighter touch concerning the exercise of the powers of the State on matters like masking, lock-downs, and vaccinations.

In countries like Germany, during the height of the pandemic, with the pro-lock-downs/vaccinations view in the ascendance; saw mass protests against such measures in major cities like Berlin, Munich, Stuttgart, Cologne, and Frankfurt. Much of the anger was directed against the intrusive character of the State and its perceived socially adverse relationship with major corporations. With characters like Bill Gates firmly in the crosshairs⁽³⁾.

Speaking of the former head of the tech behemoth Microsoft, the person with tens of billions of dollars at his disposal, who has in recent years shifted his focus strongly in the direction of philanthropy and, if one is to use the word, lobbying. His efforts being carried out (mainly via the Melinda-Gates foundation) and advanced under captivating headings like ‘effective altruism’, women’s empowerment, and environmental protection. His contributions to human welfare, whilst applauded by many, are also viewed with a degree of suspicion from various quarters of the public, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Bill Gates, in a viral (no pun indented) 2014 TED talk – ‘The next outbreak? We’re not ready’, boldly stated:

“[T]hat if anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, its most likely to be a highly infectious virus, rather than a war. Not missiles but microbes” ⁽⁴⁾.

This is all common knowledge. People die. And most people (in present times) die due to natural causes, one of which is death by complications arising from viral infections. Notably, by viruses that function as vectors paving the way for a secondary bacterial invasion that exploits an already-compromised immune system. These kinds of ‘cooperative infections’ are pervasive among pathogens that affect the upper respiratory tract ⁽⁵⁾. Hence such co-infection scenarios would ironically warrant the use of antibiotics. Case in point: the SARS-CoV-2.

Now what is problematic is what Bill Gates said next:

“…[N]ext time we might not be so lucky [referring to the contained Ebola outbreak]. You can have a virus where people feel well enough while they’re infectious, that they get on a plane, or go to a market. The source of the virus could be a natural epidemic like Ebola, or it could be bio-terrorism”.

By ‘bio-terrorism’, Mr. Gates is hinting at the possibility that such a future pandemic-causing virus could be designed. Or at least, a scenario where a natural pathogen is subjected to some kind of augmentation that enhances its infectiousness, survivability, and lethality. All of which presupposes intelligent agency.

Now the most bizarre aspect of the eight-and-a-half-minute video is how Mr. Gates lays out, almost point by point, how such a pandemic would: break out; spread rapidly across the world owing to its highly transmissible nature; take lives; necessitate a response involving accelerated vaccine and drug development and deployment cycle, and… get this, how such a response would work when placed within a “global health system” ^(ibid).

For those with a conspiratorial bent-which is almost everyone these days on both sides of the political spectrum-talks of a future global pandemic, and the need for a global (or globalist) response, propounded by the likes of Bill Gates, is likely to fuel further angst and suspicion. More so, since Bill Gates was back at Davos in 2022 promoting his new book, ominously titled: How to Prevent the Next Pandemic ⁽⁶⁾.

Thus the idea that the whole pandemic nightmare was planned from the start: that societies around the world were being used as testing grounds for the rulers to oversee; resulting in much of the world population being systematically terrorized, commandeered, jabbed, and monitored as guinea pigs in a vast global experiment conducted by modern-day ‘World Controllers’ of the likes found in Aldous Huxley’s dystopian nightmare. With people like Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, the nameless bureaucrats at the WHO, and the stateless elites who call Davos their home, pulling the strings, is not too far out there.

For some of the views expressed during the early stages of the pandemic that were considered conspiracy theories, that latter proved to be… correct? Or at least not beyond the remits of possibility. Notably, the idea that the disease-causing pathogen originated in a Wuhan lab (i.e. the lab-leak theory). A hypothesis that was vehemently opposed by the bigwigs in the medical community and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media. With one expert in microbiology from Tulane University boldly stating:

‘Nature still can do a better job at designing a virus than any person could⁽⁷⁾.

Sure it can. It ‘designed’ us, didn’t it!?

The point is that at the height of the pandemic, several authoritative sources in the media and health including the WHO contended that the respiratory disease-causing virus most likely originated in bats⁽⁸⁾. A view that was widely circulated and considered plausible given the history of animal-to-human transmission of diseases. With the said bat–human connection, a subject of academic research going back to 2015. One that delved into the spill-over potential of the very SARS-CoV virus in these flying mammals⁽⁹⁾.

However, as more recent revelations have shown, notably the extraordinary lengths those who were opposed to the lab-leak theory went in advancing the zoonotic hypothesis (natural transmission of the disease-causing microbes between animals), appears to validate the opposite: That human agency was involved at varying degrees.

Findings by Federal investigators revealed not just the experimentation on viruses in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which happens to be located at the epicenter of the outbreak, but also the involvement of elements within the US government.

The report by the Office of Inspector General revealed the funding of the said Chinese institute by the NIH via a non-profit known as the Eco Health Alliance; with payments going back to 2014. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)-which falls under the Executive branch-stated there was no direct evidence of what is known as ‘gain of function research’⁽¹⁰⁾. However, does this mean that human agency could be dismissed entirely?

With respect to the NIH, the ODNI report stated that the funding of research in the Wuhan lab via the Eco Health Alliance non-profit has gone into the study of bat coronaviruses, including the development of new hybrid variants and their human transmission potential. But this, according to experts (from the Executive branch) did not qualify as ‘gain of function’ ⁽¹¹⁾.

At this point, the rational response would be to not jump to either conclusion. That:

The COVID-19 virus was a product or at least a by-product of human action.
Or
It was entirely a natural event/occurrence.

For our debate what is of concern is the role played by key stakeholders in government and the private sector who presided over the pandemic response.

THE ESTABLISHMENT'S RESPONSE

One thing that became clear during the height of the pandemic (now over 3 years ago), was the dominance of a set of views (later, rules) on what the right response to the outbreak should or ought to be: That is how the public should or ought to go about ordering their social and to a great extent their personal lives to safeguard, as the argument went, ‘public safety’.

The need to maximize public safety, safeguard the collective good, save human lives… Whatever the rhetoric employed, it was aided by narrative-reinforcing reporting from much of the mainstream media. One that was strengthened by the undeniable threat of exerting the binding power of the law if necessary to effectuate the desired ends. Which, one believes, kept most people’s unease in check, and ‘content’ to go along with the strenuous demands.

Speaking of ends: the desired aim, method, and seemingly the endpoint of combating the pandemic was primarily through the adoption of masking, vaxxing, and the ‘lock-dowing’ of almost the entirety of the human populace.

In the early months of the pandemic, the drab reality of being confined to one’s home for months on end; with little to no freedom of movement outside depending on the laws of the state or country you lived in. With human contact severely curtailed, even if it involves meeting loved ones; and in the most tragic cases, the denial of being with terminally ill patients or the recently deceased. Including those dying of complications caused by the virus itself ⁽¹²⁾.

There is more than enough pain and heartache to go ground on this subject. The question is should it have been so?

Could the political leadership at the time, and the wise heads in the medical and pharmaceutical community have opted for a viral containment strategy that could have produced a different, dare say, better set of outcomes? The position of yours truly is: Yes.

Considering the findings outlined earlier: From the lack of transparency on American funding by proxy, of a Chinese lab dealing with hybrid (possibly augmented) viruses with the potential to infect humans; the role of the pharmaceutical companies during the pandemic, especially on vaccine development. A vast subject area that is worthy of an academic thesis on the relationship between the State, pharmaceutical companies, and public health. Thus an argument could be made that things could have turned out differently if the incentive structure was different and/or more inclusive of new ideas, combined with the political will to act on them.

As far as the questionable behavior of the pharmaceutical industry, which spearheaded the development of and supply of vaccines, what was clear from the start was the profit motive. One that never (in fairness) went away, even in the face of the public health emergency. This is not a problem in itself. However, what was problematic (or unforgivable) is how the global health crisis unleashed by COVID-19 pandemic became a potential boon for drug makers, one that was exploited to the fullest.

As ordinary citizens in societies around the world were in turmoil, the top pharmaceutical giants were raking (or stood to rake) in billions of dollars in additional profits. Pfizer, for example, made a record revenue of over $100 billion for 2022, with a staggering $57 billion of that total profit being generated by its COVID vaccines and anti-viral (COVID) pill Paxlovid⁽¹³⁾. The profits made by the pharmaceutical companies involved in vaccines were so high that Reuters appears to bemoan the oncoming drop off (in 2023) with a report titled: “Drug companies face COVID cliff in 2023 as sales set to plummet”⁽¹⁴⁾.

Well, that’s just capitalism! With the pursuit of profits being the driver of innovation; so everything is good. Except for the fact that much of the funding for the R&D carried out by these corporate giants on vaccine developments appears to have come from taxpayer dollars.

Staying with Pfizer, which co-developed its COVID-19 (Comirnaty) jab in collaboration with the German biotech firm BioNTech. The latter, which benefited from a 375 million Euro grant given by the German government⁽¹⁵⁾. This builds on the tens of billions of dollars American taxpayers have poured into R&D over the years, with a lot of that money being funneled into projects that involve big and profitable pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer ⁽¹⁶⁾.

The US government, for example, spent around $ 18 billion at various stages of the development of the (then) 6 vaccine candidates ^(ibid). With all of this government (public) support, one would imagine that the leadership of these corporate majors would be more charitable. Or at best equitable, with respect to the final cost of the vaccine that almost everyone (at one point) was required to stick into their bodies.

Not so. Reports by the non-profit Oxfam showed that Pfizer charged citizens in wealthier nations considerably more per shot⁽¹⁷⁾. Case in point is the UK where COVID shots were charged between £ 18 – £ 22. Whereas poorer African countries were charged between $ 3 – $ 10. This might seem justified considering per-capita incomes, but considering that the non-profit cost of each dose is only $6.75, raises eyebrows⁽¹⁸⁾. All of this is in addition to the billions of dollars in public research funding, accelerated development cycles, and pre-approved purchases that greatly benefited pharmaceutical companies that were involved in these efforts⁽¹⁹⁾.

Further, investigations carried out by ‘Open the Books’, a non-profit based in Chicago with efforts aimed at government transparency, showcased findings that scientists among other stakeholders, including bigwigs: Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins were the recipients of large “royalty payments” from pharmaceutical companies.

The said individuals, who were heavily involved (as administrators, not scientists) in dolling out billions of dollars worth of grants to pharmaceutical companies for research and development over the years, also happened to be among the personnel at the NIH who took in such payments worth hundreds of millions of dollars in the 2000 – 2010 period.

Whilst the exact amount is unknown, the two most prominent faces of the pandemic responses on this side of the Atlantic received a total of 37 payments on top of their tax-payer-funded salaries⁽²⁰⁾.

THE PROBLEM WITH
‘VACCINE HESITANCY’

Speaking of such well-connected pivotal players. In the United States, the efforts to deal with the crisis were led by the Director of the NIH: a man who is arguably the most notable ‘Scientist – Christian’ of our time: Francis Collins. Who gained recognition for his involvement in the human genome project, and was at the helm of America’s primary public health and research institute for over a decade. A man who was aided by his faithful servant: the apparent love-child of the media + political establishment (of both parties): Anthony Fauci.

Leaving aside the revelations/accusations alleged against these two characters, their biggest fault line was the shutting down of any debate that went against the established position on the pandemic response that they (or their paymasters) wished to uphold.

The profit motive underlying the government-aided mass vaccination campaigns, where there were winners on both sides; only reinforced the view that there was a deliberate effort to forestall, negate, or outright demonize contrarian views on the nature of the virus, its origins, the development and deployment of vaccines; and critically the possibility of considering other potential means to deal with the pandemic.

During the height of the pandemic (2020-21), there was a shared sense of ‘what if’, among many in the United States and other parts of the world: That the pandemic could have been handled differently (i.e. better) by those who held the reins of power. A sensibility that has only grown stronger in the aftermath of the pandemic. Notably in the English-speaking world where there is a growing unease against, to use the expression, ‘ruling scientific class’.

The class of people, led by the likes of Francis Collins and Fauci, who dictated terms on how the public at large must operate in relation to this emergency. One that embodied an unequivocally pro-vaccine + lock-downs stance. Almost to a point of dogmatism that left little room for differing opinions, no matter how well-informed.

Leaving aside the historical skepticism concerning the efficacy of traditional (inactivated, attenuated) viral variants, the new mRNA vaccine is a different animal. One that, as events/revelations in recent times appear to indicate, comes with a host of questions, to say the least. Among the most concerning is the correlation between young men (below 30) who took the mRNA jab and a dangerous condition called myocarditis: that involves the inflammation of heart muscles⁽²¹⁾.

What’s funny (or not) is that among the major stakeholders in the currently dominant ‘pro-science’ segment of Western society: the group consisting of self-proclaimed secularists, anti-theists, so-called children of the Enlightenment, and, in my opinion, the most obnoxious strain, pro-Darwinian Christians; those who claim to be ‘led by the evidence’ as opposed to faith or dogma; were at the forefront of shutting down countervailing positions on the use and efficacy of vaccines and the implementation of lock-downs.

Among the most notable, if one is to use the term ‘cancellations’, was that of Dr. Robert Malone. A biochemist who has made pioneering contributions in virology, notably (and ironically) in the arena of mRNA vaccines. But like many in the scientific community, he had a different view on what the right response to the pandemic should or ought to be. And he was among the brave souls at the highest levels to raise questions about the right course of action in dealing with the crisis.

But raising questions that cast doubts on the extant scientific orthodoxy and its political outworking is a Sin no one can escape. Even for an expert with a deep understanding of the subject and the credentials to boot.

Dr. Malone’s calls for more openness in the debate surrounding the pandemic response, questioning the merits of a select course of action taken in dealing with the emergency, with respect to vaccines and lock-downs were met with firm opposition. With the eminent virologist’s interview with Joe Rogan being pulled from YouTube, and his Twitter account suspended (before the Musk takeover)⁽²²⁾. The interview with Dr. Malone even got the seemingly cancel-proof Joe Rogan into trouble. With him having to post a follow-up video to put things in perspective (i.e. submit to the ruling orthodoxy).

Following his ‘controversial’ (by the standards of the dominant narrative) interview with Joe Rogan, in which he shed light on concerning realities surrounding the nature and efficacy of vaccines, in addition to the wider socio-political context in which the deployment was carried out: one that he characterized as a “coordinated campaign of censorship and propaganda” to advance a singular (pro-vaxx + lock-down + masking) view, to the exclusion of countervailing positions that raised legitimate questions⁽²³⁾.

And Dr. Malone was not alone.

‘The Great Barrington Declaration’: an open letter released on 04 October 2020, in which epidemiologists and public health experts from across the world expressed “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies”. And in turn offered an alternate approach called ‘Focused Protection’: which called for a more open-ended response. Notably, one that came with fewer restrictions for the young and healthy, with a focus on building herd immunity⁽²⁴⁾.

One would think that in a ‘free society’, whether one agrees with such a position or not, the applicability of these measures to aid public health should at least be up for debate. Not so according the to ruling scientific class.

In 2021, an email obtained by the American Institute for Economic Research, following a request made via the Freedom of Information Act, showed Francis Collins contacting Anthony Fauci, just days after the release of the Great Barrington Declaration (08 October 2021). In which Collins, first dismisses the credibility of the work as a “proposal from three fringe scientists”. And then goes on to call for a Michael Corleone-style “quick and devastating published take down of its premises”. An approach emulated by Anthony Fauci in dealing with opposing viewpoints elsewhere⁽²⁵⁾.

This deliberate effort to deny the citizenry the right to make informed decisions regarding their health with the information available, ought to be a cause for concern. It does not fit within a ‘pro-freedom of thought’ policy, let alone a pro-rational or “pro-scientific” one. And such (single-minded) actions taken by the powers that be would affect the lives of hundreds of millions, or billions if you count parts of the world that follow America’s lead.

Thus one is compelled to ask the question: were these people in power at the time, the best informed? And were they motivated solely by the well-being of the people? Or were they more concerned about defending the dominant consensus on the right approach (scientific and legal) in dealing with the global pandemic?

When one speaks of dominant views, ideas, or theories, it invariably comes with its defenders and representatives in place of power. Darwinian evolution, for example, features men and women of renown, who are held up as beacons of wisdom and rationality. When it came to vaccines and lock-downs in the United States that ‘beacon’ was Anthony Fauci.

Anthony Fauci was held up as the (literal) poster child of “pro-science” elements in the Trump Administration. The man who was supposed to be reining in (in the eyes of the mainstream media) the traditional irrationality of the ‘anti-science GOP’, headed by the “Orange man”. It is fair to say that during the pandemic, Fauci was portrayed by the mainstream media as some kind of secular saint. A person who was to act as a bulwark against the anti-science machinations of his Republican boss.

Given the lofty heights to which Fauci and the institutions he represented had been elevated-the NIH and the Pharmaceutical industry, in particular, with their history of working closely together-the sheer uniformity of opinion that was fed into the mainstream cannot be deemed a surprise. Thus it also does not come as a surprise that dissenters of the vaccine+lock-down mantra, no matter how qualified or knowledgeable were dealt with swiftly.

It is interesting to note that such authoritarian attitudes with respect to key health/medical questions predate the onset of the pandemic crisis period of 2020-22. The notion that the scientific method and medical practice are thoroughly objective enterprises with universal agreements on key questions such as the origin of life, the nature of the cosmos, the use and efficacy of vaccines, etc. does not stand up to serious scrutiny.

From the existence of dark matter, and the emergence of complex life, to the efficacy of vaccines in relation to natural immunity; scientists today are as divided as ever on these key subjects. With newer findings, such as those by the James Webb Telescope on the rate of expansion of the universe; the findings of electron microscopes on the presence of cellular machinery-that were unknown to the likes of Charles Darwin-are challenging long-held views in the scientific community.

The problem is that dissenting views, whenever they do arise-as they already exist-are often ignored, dismissed, or actively squashed by those in positions of power before they reach the wider culture. Speaking of those in power, in present times they happen to be, and this brings us to the crux of this essay, those who embrace the Darwinian view of life.

Concerning the efficacy and use of vaccines, and how those who held differing opinions were effectively ostracized and cast out, was indeed symptomatic of a deeper problem within the scientific enterprise in the West. Where, what can be described as a ruling class of intellectuals and academics, who work faithfully to uphold and propound a set of views on key scientific questions, and at the same time direct their efforts to ruthlessly shut down not just differing opinions and research on those very topics, but the people themselves.

In other words, the problem no longer concerns an individual or group (however qualified) entertaining different opinions, regardless of the strength of the research or findings, that may challenge an existing theory or paradigm. The problem for the powers that be is that such a person or group exists in the first place!

The pandemic provided, if one chooses to read it as such, the opening these scientific demagogues who defend the extant orthodoxy were waiting for. To ruthlessly carry out their function as gatekeepers. The opportunity they were waiting for to exert their (ideologically motivated) will on the populace, and at the same time (further) marginalize other experts who are now, or have historically, challenged their views.

A comparable example would be the ‘public’ reaction to gun-related crimes in the United States. Whenever fatalities involving firearms occur in America, it immediately ignites discussions, usually engineered by anti-gun lobbies and their enablers in the (left-leaning) media, on ‘gun control’. Which is not a bad thing necessarily. But the narrative has become so one-sided that it fails to confront let alone address the underlying (psychological, socio-economic) factors that lead to such tragedies.

Similarly, the pandemic gave the vaccine (pharmaceutical) industry and their intellectual enablers in academia and popular culture (e.g. pharma-funded mainstream media) to get to work in pushing a particular agenda, quite forcefully as some may recall, on an already cynical public. Particularly among right-leaning Americans who are generally suspicious of anything coming out of the Federal Government.

The subject of “vaccine hesitancy”: a term conjured up by the dominant Media + State + Scientific establishment to belittle persons concerned with the safety and efficacy of (mainly mRNA) jabs is a case in point. The ostracization of those uncomfortable with vaccines and the mRNA ones in particular-some of which were designed using fetal cell lines developed from aborted fetuses-as “science deniers” is a concerning one⁽²⁶⁾.

This kind of behavior parallels the accusations, bullying, and outright cancellation (firings and demotion) that proponents of Intelligent Design have faced over the years. This segues into the next part of the essay.

THE TWO ‘ISMS’

At this point, I ought to explain the inspiration(s) for this essay.

Starting with the fact that yours truly is a proponent of Intelligent Design. This is not a tough thing to say, as it is for certain others, since my career/academic prospects are not on the line for saying so. What started out (and still remains) an attempt at an overview of the pandemic and how it was handled from the standpoint of someone who in time-I believe, like many-came to the conclusion that things could have been handled differently.

That if new/unorthodox ideas were permitted at the time and acted upon, things could have turned out better for a lot of people. A view that was reinforced when the deeper workings and underlying them, the worldview of the key players who led the efforts at battling the viral spread, came to the fro: The personnel who were, as we have seen, not only fighting the pandemic but were also busy battling others who were opposed to a singular/select course of action.

The hypothesis that I seek to defend in this essay is that virtually all of the key advocates, or as I would call them ‘Inquisitors’ of the dominant orthodoxy at the time: (mass vaccination + lock-downs + masking) were united in their adherence to a Darwinian view of life.

DARWINISM

The term Darwinism is connected to the works of Charles Darwin, the famous British naturalist. Notably his famous book The Origin of Species (1859). The work that gave rise to the Darwinian view of evolution. (Since it is not the only one). Darwin argued, that through a process of natural selection working on random mutations, over time (hundreds of millions of years) complex life emerged, including sentient beings like us that ponder the nature of life and the cosmos.

The term ‘Darwinism’ today is often used in relation to Neo-Darwinism: this refers to (to simplify greatly) the synthesis of Darwin’s views of natural selection and random mutation with Mendelian genetics. To the more controversial (and dangerous) Social Darwinism, which deals with the application of Darwinian (survivalist) principles to groups, societies, and even nation-states.

The central dogma of Darwinian evolution (as opposed to Lamarckian Evolution of ‎Jean-Baptiste Lamarck or Intelligent Evolution, proposed by Alfred Wallace) is that complex life emerged through a set of processes that had no end goal in mind (dysteleology). This is a critical point, for it asserts not only that life (ultimately) has no purpose, but that the development of life, with its immense complexity and diversity, does not warrant agency. That is a higher power or God.

COVIDISM

This is a term I borrowed from the (now former) 2024 GOP candidate Vivek Ramasway. The man who has drawn attention to the growing (or already existing) need for alternate sources or ‘centers’ of belief. Or if one is to use the word: faith, concerning the basis of one’s identity.

In a speech given in Florida (November 2023), he ties together the rise in, what could be characterized as the new secular religions of modern America:

“Woekism, Transgenderism, Climatism, Covidism, Globalism, Zelenskyism”⁽²⁷⁾.

Echoing the wisdom of G.K Chesterton that “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything”. Ramasway hits on the spiritual and intellectual void left by the loss of faith in greater principles like the pursuit of excellence, God, and nationhood.

To be clear, this is not an endorsement of the Republican candidate. The reason why the concept of ‘Covidism’ is appealing, is that it conceptualizes the pandemic and the official response into a single term: akin to describing an ideological theory. One that captures the mass psychology of fear, uncertainty, and rigidity that marked the response to the pandemic.

That at times seemed like the systematic perpetuation of angst and uncertainty surrounding the nature of the virus: with graphs and visual statistics displaying the rising number of infections, deaths, and the spread of the pathogen across the globe. Then followed by the rage over vaccine research and development, and the (manufactured) urgency to receive this apparently ‘life-saving’ vaccine.

I’ll never forget being stuck inside the house during the early months of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, with full lock-downs in place. With news reports endlessly hammering away at the subject, adding to the anxiety. With constant bulletins that seemed to be designed to terrorize the populace into mental submission. In order to, one suspects, to ease public concerns over whatever narrative that was spun by the mainstream on the nature of COVID-19 and the acceptable response.

The ‘official response’, if one recalls, consisting of masking + lock-downs + vaccinations (with boosters to boot) took on a life of its own. An ideology of sorts, with those with opposing views being cast out not only on intellectual grounds but also morally and politically.

DESIGN

Now onto the third term that makes up the title of this essay: ‘Design’.

The design I am referring to is Intelligent Design. With a capital ‘D’. In case the reader has not bothered to Google the term and click on the link to the Wikipedia page and read its (wrong/misleading) write-up. In simple terms, Intelligent Design ‘holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an un-directed process such as natural selection’ ⁽²⁸⁾.

The affirmation of Design in nature: that physical systems, including sentient life, were built over a period of time, via a directed process, overseen by a greater mind (as opposed to being created in the course of 6 days), leads to the conclusion that life has an end goal, and by extension meaning and purpose. All of which proponents of Darwinian evolution logically and necessarily disaffirm.

To employ an often-cited quote from one of the modern advocates of Darwinian evolution, Richard Dawkins:

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”.

Dawkins, here, is referring to the reality of natural evil, and how its undeniable reality makes it impossible to be reconciled with the reality of Design and purpose in nature, that presuppose a Designer. Presumably a good one.

Needless to say, this is an immensely complex subject. One that lies at the heart of arguably the greatest question in Christianity and indeed of all religious faiths: Why does a good God permit evil?

Again, there is no simple answer. A starting point could be the teachings of the Catholic Church on the subject of ‘The Fall’. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Holy See teaches that:

“God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil”⁽²⁹⁾.

There is much to unpack here and this is not the time or place to do so. The key takeaway is that the question of evil and human suffering are central to the Christian claim. And the Church (Catholic or otherwise) in its history has not shied away from it. So for Dawkins and other Darwin-inspired atheists to employ (as they often do) what is truly the strongest argument against a theistic view of life, does not undermine the argument for Design.

These criticisms can be countered with the position that ‘bad’ Design does not equate to ‘No Design’. This is known as the argument from sub-optimality. That, understood correctly, does not preclude Design.

For example, a Soviet-made Zaporozhets mini is no match for an Audi A5 in terms of style, speed, durability, and technology. In sum the latter is just better engineered or designed, however, that does not mean the Soviet-made vehicle is not.

Dawkins, like many atheists-intellectuals, is relying on a select reading of biology and the study of the natural world to support his opposition to Design. This is not new among atheist intellectuals throughout history.

From Karl Marx’s materialistic interpretation of history, one that left no room for the working of Spirit; to Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist basis for (secular) humanism, one that placed human will at the center (anti-deterministically, one might add) with a focus on human flourishing but then leaving no room for a Divine lawgiver; to the atomist doctrine of the pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus, that reduced the whole of reality to atoms and the infinite void, leaving no room for a soul.

Concerning Intelligent Design, the theory and its proponents, are principally not committed to advancing the secondary implications that result from its conclusions: That if features of life (and even non-living systems) show discernible patterns that indicate Design, that would logically point to the existence of a Designer. However, whether that Designer is God, or an alien intelligence from a Type IV Civilization (Kardashev Scale) is another matter.

The one philosophical question that is unavoidable when it comes to the question of Design in nature is that it necessarily raises questions about teleology. The question of ‘Why are we here?’ changes necessarily when Design is affirmed. Raising further questions on the nature of life, morality, and purpose.

VAXXERS, GLOBALISTS AND ‘THE CANCELLED’

I will start this section by explicating a term that has gained traction in recent times: ‘Cancellation’.

‘Cancel culture’ as it is known, is becoming a powerful (and sad) feature of modern-day discourse, particularly online. One that often comes with real-world implications.

The reality of cancel culture was articulated lucidly by a YouTuber who specializes in gaming-related content: a man going by the alias ‘Solidrev’. In a video engaging the controversy surrounding the-then (2020) highly anticipated AAA (big budget) video game: Cyberpunk 2077. Developed by the acclaimed Polish game developer CD Projekt Red.

To provide some backdrop, following the great success of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – The third installment in the ‘high fantasy’ video game franchise based on the books by the Polish author, Andrzej Sapkowski; there was tremendous hype going into their next game. (As a side note, the video game industry is larger than the film and music industries combined). But as things turned out, Cyberpunk 2077 turned out to be a monumental failure performance-wise.

The bug-ridden game upon its release on 10 December 2020 was brutalized by gamers across the board. It was a major letdown following the hype leading up to its release, which meant the company’s reputation was annihilated on online forums across platforms; leading to a public apology from the co-founder of CD Projekt Red, with refunds for gamers.

Solidrev, summarizing what transpired:

‘You’re like sharks in the water… That’s how the internet is. This whole cancel them out! […] You don’t want to hold someone accountable. That’s not what you want to do […] You don’t want to teach them a lesson. You want to obliterate them. You want to annihilate their existence’⁽³⁰⁾.

Curiously, the reality of ‘cancel culture’ that was on show during the pandemic was arguably experienced firsthand in the modern era by those (of us) who dared to challenge the dominance of Darwin. Specifically its naturalistic presuppositions and its opposition to any hint of teleology.

But before going further here’s a curious list of vaccine/lock-down cheerleaders in the scientific community and their positions on issues ranging from vaccines, the origin of life, the nature of the cosmos, and scientific authority:

Lawrence Krauss on Vaccines (in 2016): https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-anti-science-campaign.
Lawrence Krauss on the “Creationism” of former Secretary for Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance (Pay-walled article).
Francis Collins on Vaccine hesitancy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SgydNvRof8
Francis Collins now walking things back: https://thenationalpulse.com/tag/francis-collins/ (Credit to J Brian Pitts).
Richard Dawkins in a supremely self-indulgent conversation with Neil Tyson on “Combating anti-science” in 2021: https://youtu.be/YXlfjzl-CFw?si=Y12ihkygR_ka0mcs

Dawkins, then walking things back – (i.e. on getting it wrong – Important): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCLR32agbsg
Sam Harris on Vaccines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iaBBAoZXbI
Neil de Grass Tyson on Vaccines: https://youtu.be/CquiSjgJNc8?si=4M0TKcC_DGdGYdy1
Kenneth R Miller on vaccines and science denial: https://www.brown.edu/news/2017-02-16/miller
Yuval Noah Harari – in an article titled: “Every crisis is also an opportunity”. (https://courier.unesco.org/en/articles/yuval-noah-harari-every-crisis-also-opportunity).

GLOBALIST SCIENCE

In case the reader has missed it, the one thing all of the people listed above have in common is their affirmation of Darwinian evolution, its naturalistic presuppositions, and (this follows logically) their denial of Design in nature.

As for the counterargument that Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller are Christians? Well, the answer is that this is a major/ongoing issue within the pro and anti-Darwin circles. With those who chose to affirm Darwin + God (but not Design) holding (argumentatively) a much weaker position. Even though it may not appear so, pop culturally.

Since Darwinian evolution presupposes no Design, none; that everything in nature came about through “natural” processes. This means there is no foresight, or intentionality underpinning the naturalistic process. Thus attempts to read God into the natural order, such as biological systems; whilst affirming a theory that fundamentally rejects a divine hand or mind, is to affirm a contradiction. A point that proponents of Intelligent Design have had a field day cutting through⁽³¹⁾.

However, the public at large is unlikely to learn of it in the current intellectual environment. Mainly because one of the major hurdles proponents of Intelligent Design face, is that they (we) do not command, nor get the kind of public + media attention. And if any attention is to come our way, it is invariably negative.

‘Why’, one may ask.

The reasons are many. A key factor underpinning the success of Darwinian evolution (and the logical negation of Design), lies not only in its position as a theoretical framework for understanding life’s origin and development but also in its function as an intellectual engine: A governing paradigm of life in a Kuhnian sense. One that affects how a person, group, community, and even a nation at large comes to view the world, and its relationship to it.

The position of the arch-globalist Yuval Noah Harari on this matter, known for his bestselling book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind is a case in point. Sapiens has become something of a secularist playbook (thanks in no part to the promotion by Bill Gates). The ideas propounded in Sapiens are embraced by those enchanted with the beliefs flowing from places like Davos, TED, and Aspen. The content and intent of Sapiens, in many respects, is a summary of an ideological-atheist understanding of life, built on the worldview of Darwinian evolution.

Yet unique among pro-Darwinian works, Harari’s Sapiens goes on to engage and then extrapolate on the subject of Intelligent Design. In the chapter titled ‘The End of Homo Sapiens’ the globalist writes:

“For close to 4 billion years, every single organism on the planet evolved subject to natural selection. Not even one was designed by an intelligent creator. The giraffe, for example, got its long neck thanks to competition between archaic giraffes rather than the whims of a supper-intelligent being […] For billions of years, Intelligent design was not even an option, because there was no intelligence which could design things”⁽³²⁾.

Harari then comments on the portending dangers that would result from humans (intelligent agents) taking over from natural selection, in guiding the trajectory of life. Beating the drums of our forthcoming doom at the hands of our creations, he writes:

“Biologists the world over are locked in battle with the intelligent-design movement, which opposes the teaching of Darwinian evolution in schools and claims that biological complexity proves there must be a creator who thought out all biological details in advance. The biologists are right about the past, but the proponents of intelligent design might, ironically, be right about the future.

At the time of writing, the replacement of natural selection by intelligent design could happen in any of three ways: through biological engineering, cyborg engineering, [..] or the engineering of inorganic life^(ibid).

Leaving aside the fatal flaws in Mr. Harari’s analysis of Darwinism and Design, what is laid out here is his worldview: one that is shaped by a dysteleological view of life, built on the underlying denial of an established (or God-given) moral order. One that necessarily leaves the door open to the dangers of Social Darwinism that unfettered competition for resources and survival is likely to portend among the living. Organic or otherwise.

Survival of the fittest, as a concept and reality, is built into the very fabric of Darwinian evolution. No matter how strongly proponents of Darwinian evolution like Richard Dawkins and co, would like to shy away from its logical outworking.

The replacement of the term ‘Social Darwinism’ with ‘Evolutionary Psychology’, to shift the societal implications of a Darwinian worldview to the subject of the mind is one such endeavor.

However, this does not change the reality at hand. A point reinforced by the fact that the term ‘survival’ appears no less than 30 times in Harari’s book. In a human context the ‘fittest’ is likely to be the richest, the best connected, and in the context of the present debate on the pandemic and the government response: it would be those who have the ear (or control the wallets) of policymakers.

The effects of a Darwinian worldview (i.e. its preponderance) is an inescapable reality when it is applied to human systems such as societies, governments, and nation-states. Competition and survival that lie at the heart of Darwinian evolution, in a human context, problematically equates to tribalism, groupthink, and war.

In the context of COVID-19 it (Darwinian evolution) being the governing paradigm of the scientific establishment, necessarily affected how outside (out-group) opinions and the persons expressing them were perceived (i.e. as adversaries).

Another key feature surrounding the debate on vaccines, scientific inquiry, and public policy concerning personal freedom (i.e. to opt out of vaccine mandates), is the unambiguously pro-Statist, top-down, command-and-control stance adopted by the ruling establishment. One that was aided by leading mouthpieces in the media, who worked overtime to affirm.

This is ironic. Since Darwinian evolution works in a principally chaotic, bottom-up process, involving chance and random changes. It is a principally messy process with no central organizing (goal-directed) principle. Like a mind. But it is not so ironic, since humans as intelligent agents have now graduated to a stage of directing the course of their lives and affecting the world around them purposefully. Yet the deeper contradiction remains.

Now this presents a problem from a policy-making standpoint. Since proponents of Darwinian evolution and their backers in the mainstream media, the enablers in the medical community, and the executors in the Administrative State are disposed to operate out of the suppositions that Darwinian evolution affirms. The most notable being that humans are a product of chance, and are driven to maximize personal and later a select group (tribal) benefit, to the exclusion of the wider community; especially during times of trial. This in turn warrants a strong hand like the State, to moderate the resulting (competitive) chaos.

So in practice, given what is assumed about human nature, it is likely to compel policymakers informed by the Darwinian worldview to take the most drastic, but according to their beliefs ‘altruistic’, steps in curtailing human behavior. Even rational ones, like expressing unease over a vaccine that was developed in an inordinately short time scale.

The dominance of the Darwinian paradigm in academia, notably in the biological sciences has naturally leaked into other areas of expertise. One that has fed and entrenched a Hobbesian view of life: that human existence at a societal level is nasty, brutish, and short IF not for the strong arm of Leviathan to keep the populace at large in check.

Even if that means impinging on the personal freedoms of citizens. This includes shutting down intellectuals/academics/professionals with top credentials, but with no political capital.

Control.

Keep that word in mind whenever discussions that center on, or are derived from a Darwinian worldview are in play. In the aforementioned (linked) article for UNESCO, Harari states:

“…if we react to the epidemic with global solidarity and generosity, and if we trust in science rather than in conspiracy theories, I am sure we can not only overcome this crisis, but actually come out of it much stronger”⁽³³⁾.

Here’s a layman’s translation of the keywords present in the above statement:

‘Global solidarity’ = Sacrifice national sovereignty to transnational governing bodies (like the UN and the WHO).
‘Generosity’ = Taxpayers, particularly in wealthy nations will have to pay the costs for mass-vaccine rollouts and the economic cost of lock-downs in their own countries and also in developing nations.
‘Trust in science’ = Acquiesce to the dominant narrative generated by a group of experts living in ivory towers without question. And adhere to all demands made by policymakers who uphold the dominant narrative on what is acceptable (legal) concerning your personal and professional life.
‘Conspiracy theories’ – Includes any and all ideas, conjectures, opinions, and even academic/scientific research that runs counter to the dominant narrative/orthodoxy.

A reason why the likes of Francis Collins, Anthony Fauci, and their followers acted with a heightened sense of urgency in shutting down heterodox views and were so focused on advancing the pro-vaccine, lock-downs position is that these guys were driven by a quasi-spiritual faith in a doctrine that tolerates no competition. None.

And if there is such competition of ideas, then such ideas (scientific theories) need to rise to the top despite their underlying (or unrecognized) shortfalls. But on a level playing field, this will not happen. As Darwinian evolution is riddled with flaws.

For example, the subject of “Junk DNA”, which has been overturned with newer research, that even hardcore Darwinians like Francis Collins have come around to accept. Thus questions on the apparent infallibility of certain scientific theories ought to naturally extend into other areas of study. Such as the safety and efficacy of vaccines. A subject which we shall return to.

Harari’s views on the evolution of life and its future trajectory are one of many cases where the Darwinian view of evolution has come to permeate key subsets of the scientific enterprise. From cosmology, natural sciences, and beyond. Often to its detriment.

DIRECTED VIRUS

An interesting point that Harari makes with respect to Intelligent Design in Sapiens, one that lends credence to the lab-leak theory that was dismissed out of hand during the early stages of the pandemic by the scientific leadership, is the reference to biological engineering.

Biological engineering could mean several things as it is a vast field of study integrating a variety of disciplines. Notably, molecular engineering. A discipline that involves the study and development of (but not limited to) protein molecules, pertinently, to construct molecular machinery that can “manipulate biological materials”⁽³⁴⁾.

There is a lot to unpack here, the gist of it is that molecular engineering seeks to effect changes at an atomic level of the cell, thus opening up new possibilities on how these materials can be altered and directed for specific uses.

Since viruses consist of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) with an outer protein shell, a subset of molecular engineering relevant to this debate, deals with designing novel viral vectors: that is the use of viruses as tools by exploiting their capabilities (e.g. the capacity to infect cells). This is done by exploiting the viral mechanism for delivering their genetic payload into a cell. At present work is being done to employ modified pathogens that function as viral vectors to transfer the desired (therapeutic) genes to the target cells⁽³⁵⁾.

The process of altering these viruses often involves augmenting their ability to bypass the natural immunity of the target organism. In an emerging field known as micro-technology work is being done to augment the virus’s innate capabilities to infect.

This is a matter that arguably falls under the heading of ‘gain of function’ research. Through a process known as ‘serial passage’: where the external environment of the virus is artificially changed, with consequent effects on the organism (e.g. an increase or decrease in its survivability, infectiousness, etc.)⁽³⁶⁾.

Serial passage, in relation to the SARS‐CoV‐2 has come under fire from certain (less-known) quarters of the medical community. Notably by those brave enough to voice concerns over the sufficiency of the zoonotic jump hypothesis. Critically, of its explanatory power in light of new and existing research on ‘gain of function’ and its possible connection with the virus.

The point is, serial passage itself according to certain experts qualifies as ‘gain of function’ research(ibid). Other scientists (naturally those in favor of zoonotic jump, disagree.

This gives rise to two takeaways:

Given how the pandemic response was handled, particularly during the critical stages by the leadership in the United States, and to a lesser extent, by the WHO; combined with revelations on the personal dealings of key stakeholders involved in managing the response-notably their close ties with the pro-vax pharmaceutical industry; raises questions about virtually everything that took place during that period. The policies, type of leadership, etc.
This, in turn, impels us, the wider public, to raise further questions on the underlying causes of what transpired: to provoke further debate on the beliefs and motivations of the personnel involved.

Meaning, that if the public is to find a scapegoat to unload its righteous indignation, it needs to identify a common feature (or aliment) that marred many, if not most of the key people involved.

The answer, I would state is Darwinism. Specifically, it is the pervasiveness of an ideology that arose out of the dominance of a Darwinian view of life.

CELEBRATING THE DARWINIAN PANDEMIC

The distinguished philosopher from Duke University and rabid Darwinist, Alexander Rosenberg, a man known for going after Darwin critics under the heading of “anti-Darwinism”, even if the person raising such questions happens to be a stone-cold atheist⁽³⁷⁾. In an article titled ‘How to make sense of the Pandemic’ provides his Darwinian take on the origin, nature, and spread of the pandemic, and the type of response it necessitated:

“It’s the persistent Darwinian selection of virus particles for larger reproduction numbers that makes isolation, social distance and quarantine indispensable steps in limiting the impact of the coronavirus”⁽³⁸⁾.

Rosenberg then provides a Darwinian take on the efficacy of vaccines:

“A vaccine works because its molecular structure previews the signature of the disease. It jump-starts yet another Darwinian process. The preview starts the screening for the stem cells that will attack the real disease when it comes along”^(ibid).

Then leaving no doubts with regards to his undying faith in Darwinism, Rosenberg boldly states:

“A famous geneticist once said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Turns out that includes medicine and public health. But it includes a lot more. [And] by giving us the explanation of where COVID-19 came from and where it’s going, by deploying the tools to stop it in its tracks and prevent its recurrence, Darwin’s theory vindicates its authority to make sense of the pandemic for us, to tell us what it means”^(ibid).

Interestingly, Rosenberg with his faith firmly set on Darwin, confidently dismisses the hypothesis that the disease-causing virus could have been a byproduct of human machinations (Design):

“One thing [the COVID virus] tell[s] us forcefully is the fatuousness of a search for a nefarious conspiracy behind the pandemic. Humans don’t have the power to do what natural selection does, operating that fast on so many different levels across the entire world”^(ibid).

A key point to consider here is the paradoxical fascination with Darwinian evolution and its creative (or creatively destructive) powers among its adherents. Even when its actual generative potential-as proponents of Intelligent Design have shown time and again-remains woefully inadequate(39).

Also, the boldness with which Rosenberg advances his position, not stopping to consider an alternate hypothesis, is a glaring failure for a supposedly open-minded scientist/philosopher. As detailed studies into the origins and spread of the virus in the aftermath of the pandemic have posited a number of different but interrelated causes.

A more well-balanced take on the origins of COVID-19 can be found in ‘Perspective’ in The New England Journal of Medicine. In a well-argued piece titled: ‘The Origins of Covid-19 — Why It Matters (and Why It Doesn’t)’ a Jurist Doctor (JD) and a Ph.D. analyze the causes and controversy surrounding the origin, progression, the response to the pandemic-causing pathogen and its inevitable politicization⁽⁴⁰⁾.

The writers engage both hypotheses: the zoonotic spillover and the lab-leak theory, and look at the merits of both. Critically in relation to authoritative sources and the findings regarding each.

One interesting revelation that many in the public may not be aware of is that the FBI supported the lab-leak theory with “low-confidence” early on, whilst the Department of Energy expressed “moderate” support for the same view. The authors, however, do acknowledge that natural causes commanded the most scientific backing, whilst working within the limits of available information; and also considering China’s “obfuscation” of information during the saga ^(ibid).

The lesson here is to avoid the trap of embracing one theory not only as credible but as thoroughly adequate in terms of its explanatory power. Unfortunately, the dominant Darwin-idolizing scientific class in the West is guilty of doing just that. Returning to Alex Rosenberg, his deification of nature shows just that:

“As with every biological process, making sense of this [pandemic] doesn’t require transcendent purposes or cosmic meaning. Indeed, it doesn’t even allow them. It’s just nature filtering blind variation for local adaptation, in the way Darwin showed us. Get used to it” (ibid).

THE PANDEMIC IS GOOD - ACCORDING TO DARWIN -

If Alex Rosenberg believes that the global pandemic and the human response, should or ought to follow ‘Darwinian principles’; then for the environmentalist and (Darwinian) nature worshiper James Lovelock, the pandemic bane in its own twisted way, is a necessary or, for lack of a better word, a good thing.

As he writes:

“[The pandemic] is all part of evolution as Darwin saw it. You are not going to see a new species flourishing unless it has a food supply. In a sense, that is what we are becoming. We are the food. I could easily make you a model and demonstrate that as the human population on the planet grew larger and larger, the probability of a virus evolving that would cut back the population is quite marked. We’re not exactly a desirable animal to let loose in unlimited numbers on the planet” ⁽⁴¹⁾.

The deeper point here is that there is a discernible divide between those who affirm the view that life is:

Designed.
Has Purpose.
Human life is Exceptional.

Those who embrace the view that:

Life is not Designed.
Has No end Goal.
Is (ultimately) Expendable or be Sacrificed on the altar of ‘Progress’.

‘Expendable’ in relation to the attainment of higher social goals/political outcomes like women’s empowerment (abortion). Denial of health services for terminally ill and mentally challenged patients via lock-downs to curb the spread of a virus that had a 98.2 percent survival rate⁽⁴²⁾.

All done in the name of protecting ‘public health’. To say nothing of those adversely affected by the vaccines themselves (mRNAs or otherwise), and the loss of valuable school time for youngsters.

On the last point, a 2021 study on the effects of primary school closures in the Netherlands due to the COVID pandemic: a country that experienced relatively short lock-downs, with top-class health infrastructure, and fast broadband access in contrast to most other developed nations; found that “students made little or no progress”, in addition to the loss of learning for students from disadvantaged backgrounds during this time⁽⁴³⁾.

The takeaway is that the scientific community was badly in need of fresh perspectives on how to approach and respond to the pandemic. One that could have opened the doors to novel solutions that may have proven to be more effective in not only saving lives but in ensuring the livability of hundreds of millions.

However, given the dominance of a singular set of views, combined with the latent instinct to censure heterodox views, the scientific community in the West, particularly in the Anglo-American world, acted little differently from a totalitarian State.

Worse, for people like James Lovelock and other radicals of his ilk (or who aren’t as few as one may hope) the pandemic and the harm it unleashed (with or without the aid of human agency) is something to be celebrated!

At this point, one may wonder, who are these other voices? What kind of personnel or groups are we talking about? Those that could have provided value, in terms of new ideas and solutions to the dominant discourse within the scientific enterprise and the role of public policy.

‘THE CANCELED’

The reader, presuming he/she is a Christian, particularly if they happen to be from/living in the United States or the English-speaking world, is likely to have come across a show called ‘The Chosen’. It is a serialization of the life and works of Jesus Christ as presented in the Gospels, with additional material taken from other (non-Scriptural) sources.

Based on the response, the show appears to be a hit. Unsurprisingly, among the faithful which constitute its main audience. With a 4^th Season (at the time of writing) being green-lit. However, based on what I saw: some clips on YouTube, and 1/3 of the first episode, frankly I was not impressed.

No offense to anyone who liked it; but the visuals didn’t look great, the acting was sub-par, and the screenplay was a bit all over the place. But… it was better than nothing.

Christians in the West, especially the wealthy and well-connected with an eye for culture, recognize the increasingly secular, or better, purposefully anti-theistic character of Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general. Who, in recent times have decided to take matters into their own hands in engaging the modern mind through art forms such as movies and television. This is a step in the right direction.

The scientific enterprise on the other hand, which, one would imagine as a thoroughly objective endeavor in the pursuit of truth would need no such (corrective) initiative.

After all, how can the empirical study of nature, via logic and math, operating within the remits of reason be directed towards or against a certain worldview? A teleological one for example. And/or be aimed towards advancing/defending an irrational or failing orthodoxy.

Given what we have witnessed during the COVID-19 saga, from the dominance of a singular (or single-minded) approach to the exclusion of others in dealing with the crisis. Where any hint of opposition, even if it came from qualified sources was ruthlessly quashed. And considering our evolving understanding of viruses (i.e. are they truly dead or alive), the role of intelligent agents in exploiting (augmenting) their innate capabilities for various designs, combined with the grand philosophizing by secular prophets of scientific progress who sing the praise of un-directed evolution whilst warning us of the dangers of (applied) intelligent design in man-made systems, it does make the reader wonder…

All of this in addition to the new and existing questions on the efficacy of vaccines, and their ability to aid human efforts in safely confronting the effects of viral infections. To say nothing of the growing ethical concerns surrounding vaccine development. A major concern among vaccine skeptics is the relationship between early childhood vaccination and autism.

This is a complex and controversial subject area that many choose to ignore. Seemingly for ideological reasons (i.e. that vaccines are 100 percent safe and effective. End of Story). But such concerns, if one is to be intellectually honest, ought to be open for debate.

The notion that persons who question the efficacy of vaccines and the potential health hazards that may result from them are ‘anti-science’ is not a rational position to hold. For it is only reasonable, as it is with Darwinian evolution, to have concerns. Particularly when the “science” surrounding the subject, as more research comes to light, is not exactly “settled”⁽⁴⁴⁾.

On Darwinian evolution, for the layman, questions on the origin of life, and the development of complex life may seem like a settled subject. When in fact it isn’t. The same can be said about vaccines given what we are learning in the aftermath of the pandemic.

If you think about it, when people get defensive about a subject, to such a degree that they venture out to shut down countervailing views, it usually means they have something to hide. With Darwin, we have a powerful orthodoxy, that despite its shaky intellectual foundations, acts as a source of power for its upholders. One that they do not wish to let go.

Now when one looks at the plight of those who have historically (and continue to) stand up for scientific freedom on the origin of life science: in terms of what they have endured, in light of what is happening today; the proponents of Intelligent Design as an organized group of informed thinkers stand up.

The men and women who affirm the Design hypothesis and naturally oppose Darwinian evolution; whose plight, I reiterate, parallels those raising concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines today.

It is interesting to note that this degree of tribalism, group-think, ostracization of dissenting views, and the paradoxical anti-rationalism the COVID pandemic gave rise to, was prefigured in the past (and existing) antipathy towards Intelligent Design.

Along with it, and this is the concerning part, the demand for a more interventionist State to effectuate a select reading of ‘science’ (or truth) and broader its civic (legal) application.

Particularly when it comes to the teaching of origin of life science. Which in the United States and much of the West remains dominated by the Darwinian worldview. The term ‘worldview’ here includes the logical outworking that results from the embrace of the naturalist presuppositions that lie at the heart of Darwinian evolution. One that in principle, leads to atheism. Which itself is a dogmatic position. Contrary to what atheists might claim, God’s inexistence cannot be scientifically tested let alone ‘proven’.

Now concerning evolution and Design, a point that is generally overlooked is that Charles Darwin’s magnum opus On the Origin of Species dealt mainly with the survival of the fittest not the ‘arrival of the fittest’. The often omitted subtitle of the book: ‘By Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life’, has very little to say on the actual origin of life. And scientific progress in this arena hasn’t moved much today. If at all.

For those interested in the subject of Intelligent Design, and other pertinent topics, William Dembski’s The Design Inference (2^nd edition) is worth a look. As one of the key figures in the history of Intelligent Design: Dr. Dembski has, arguably more than most, faced the kind of academic censorship and anti-intellectual bullying that has been a feature of the pandemic saga, long before it became the cultural norm.

From the demise of his brainchild ‘The Michael Polanyi Center’ in 2000 at its very inception. An institute that was meant to advance Intelligent Design ‘as a legitimate form of academic inquiry’ as opposed to the Darwin-led naturalistic one that governs the current scientific enterprise; to the personal attacks that he and other proponents of Intelligent Design in academia and elsewhere have endured over the years, is noteworthy in this regard⁽⁴⁵⁾.

IN CONCLUSION

The fact that virtually all of the people responsible for the pain that resulted from the “official response” (i.e. the botched handling) of the pandemic were Darwinians in some way shape or form ought to be concerning.

In addition to those listed earlier, here is Anthony Fauci interpreting the origins of the virus via the lens of phyletic gradualism, which is at the heart of Darwinian evolution:

“If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what’s out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated … Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species,”⁽⁴⁶⁾.

As things stand, the close-minded authoritarianism in the ruling scientific class connects with an unhealthy yearning for a symbiotic relationship with a paternalistic (borderline authoritarian) State. One that comes to play an ever greater role in society. That introduces distorting effects in the effective functioning of the economy (e.g. reckless money printing). And adversely affects the rational pursuit of truth (i.e. pharma-funded policymakers enacting preferential policies).

The ever-expanding role of the State is a reality that is principally opposed by proponents of Intelligent Design. As the co-founder of The Discovery Institute, George Gilder wrote:

‘The freer an economy is, the more this human diversity of knowledge will be manifested. By contrast, political power originates in top-down processes-governments, monopolies, regulators, and elite institutions-all attempting to quell human diversity and impose order. Thus power always seeks centralization’

So the affirmation of Design in nature extends beyond the remits of the core subjects of irreducible complexity, molecular fine-tuning, the origin of specified biological information, the teleology underlying physical systems, etc. To affirm the ‘Designed’ character of life, as opposed to its ‘Evolved’ character, produces or necessitates an axiomatic relationship with questions of life’s worth, meaning, and endpoint. And by extension, critically on the nature and role of the State (government).

The conjecture that those who embrace a Darwinian view of life are firmly, but not necessarily in the pro-vaccine camp, but are logically in the pro-censorship/my way or the highway camp, as far as scientific debates on key intellectual and by extension, public policy questions are concerned, is a strong one. It is only logical to assume at present all Darwinians are principally/functionally Statists. For that is where the power to control opinion lies.

And it is fair conjecture that there wasn’t a single (open) proponent of Intelligent Design in Biden’s or Trump’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, or the National Institutes of Health, with significant power to influence the Administration on its COVID policy. This needs to change.

For too long, the proponents of naturalism and by extension, Neo-Darwinism-the noxious fountain from which these secularists, utopian or otherwise, draw their strength—have operated out of a failing orthodoxy. The sort of people who have locked out any and all dissenting voices within the scientific community, and quite predictably laid the groundwork for the (seemingly planned) chaos that unfolded. With little in terms of informed contrarian views to challenge the “scientific consensus”.

From the standpoint of proponents of Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute can play a key role in exposing these actors (which is already happening) and at the same time work to tie this kind of dangerous intellectual uniformity prevalent in the halls of power with the dominance of Darwinian evolution in academia. And whenever proponents of ID are confronted with naysayers such as pro-Darwinian Christians (evolutionary creationists), anti-theists, and the like, as a defense one can point to the reality that:

The affirmation of Design = Openness to scientific inquiry and, underlying it, freedom of thought and expression.
The opposition to Intelligent Design implies the de facto embrace of Darwinism = Intellectual dogmatism and a predilection for censure as a policy tool.

For those who share varying levels of hesitancy on vaccines, lock-downs, anthropogenic climate change, gender, and the teaching of Darwinian evolution with respect to origin of life science on scientific grounds; they (we) tend to be the ones who affirm Design.

And we are not alone.

REFERENCES

Pandemic bills are so big that only money-printing can pay them (2020) The Business Standard. Available at: https://www.tbsnews.net/coronavirus-chronicle/pandemic-bills-are-so-big-only-money-printing-can-pay-them-82102 (Accessed: 26 January 2024).
Big Pharma may have to reveal government deals in WHO’s draft pandemic rules (2022) Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/big-pharma-may-have-reveal-government-deals-whos-draft-pandemic-rules-2022-11-17/ (Accessed: 26 January 2024).
Germany is at the forefront of a global movement of anti-vaxxers obsessed with Bill Gates and it could mean the coronavirus is never defeated (2020) Business Insider. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/germany-becomes-forefront-of-a-global-movement-of-anti-vaxxers-2020-5 (Accessed: 26 January 2024).
The next outbreak? We’re not ready | Bill Gates | TED (2015) YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI (Accessed: 26 January 2024).
Cooperation between Viral and Bacterial Pathogens in Causing Human Respiratory Disease (2002) National Center for Biotechnology Information – Polymicrobial Diseases: Chapter 11. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2479/ (Accessed: 26 January 2024).
Preparing for the Next Pandemic with Bill Gates | Davos | #WEF22 (2022) YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA0Fphx4UMg (Accessed: 26 January 2024).
No, the new coronavirus wasn’t created in a lab, scientists say (2020) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/coronavirus-wasnt-created-in-lab-no-signs-genetic-engineering-1.5508735 (Accessed: 26 January 2024).
The Coronavirus Originated in Bats and Can Infect Cats, WHO Scientist Says (2020) TIME. Available at: https://time.com/5834097/coronavirus-origin-bats-infect-cats-who/ (Accessed: 26 January 2024).
Bat origin of human coronaviruses (2015) Virology Journal. Available at: https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-015-0422-1 (Accessed: 27 January 2024).
Federal watchdog finds problems with NIH oversight of grant funding bat virus research in China. (2023) Science. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.science.org/content/article/federal-watchdog-finds-problems-nih-oversight-grant-funding-bat-virus-research-china (Accessed 1/11/2024).
No direct evidence COVID started in Wuhan lab, US intelligence report says (2023) Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/no-direct-evidence-covid-19-pandemic-started-wuhan-lab-us-intelligence-report-2023-06-24/ (Accessed: 27 January 2024).
UK hospitals tightening restrictions on visits – even to dying patients (2020) The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/uk-hospitals-tightening-restrictions-on-visits-even-to-dying-patients-coronavirus (Accessed: 27 January 2024).
The Covid pandemic drives Pfizer’s 2022 revenue to a record $100 billion (2023) CNBC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/31/the-covid-pandemic-drives-pfizers-2022-revenue-to-a-record-100-billion.html (Accessed: 27 January 2024).
Focus: Drug companies face COVID cliff in 2023 as sales set to plummet (2023) Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/drug-companies-face-covid-cliff-2023-sales-set-plummet-2023-02-06/ (Accessed: 27 January 2024).
BioNTech To Receive Up To €375 Mln In Funding From German To Support COVID-19 Vaccine Program (2020) Nasdaq. Available at: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/biontech-to-receive-up-to-eu375-mln-in-funding-from-german-to-support-covid-19-vaccine (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
US Taxpayers Heavily Funded the Discovery of COVID‐19 Vaccines (2021) National Library of Medicine. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8426978/ (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
Vaccine monopolies make cost of vaccinating the world against COVID at least 5 times more expensive than it could be. (2021) Oxfam. Available at: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/vaccine-monopolies-make-cost-vaccinating-world-against-covid-least-5-times-more (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
Pfizer accused of pandemic profiteering as profits double (2022) The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/08/pfizer-covid-vaccine-pill-profits-sales (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
How Big Pharma profited from the pandemic (2022) The Philadelphia Inquirer. Available at: https://www.inquirer.com/business/drugs/drugs-vaccine-pandemic-costs-profits-big-pharma-pfizer-20220318.html (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
Did Fauci and Collins Receive Royalty Payments from Drug Companies? (2022) The National Review. Available at: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-fauci-and-collins-receive-royalty-payments-from-drug-companies/ (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
Myocarditis following COVID‐19 vaccine: incidence, presentation, diagnosis, pathophysiology, therapy, and outcomes put into perspective… (2022) National Library of Medicine. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538893/ (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
YouTube and Twitter delete Joe Rogan interview with scientist who helped invent mRNA vaccines… (2022) The Daily Mail. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10364679/YouTube-Twitter-delete-Joe-Rogan-interview-scientist-helped-invent-MRNA-vaccines.html (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
The truth about Joe Rogan’s controversial guests: ‘Father of mRNA’ Dr Malone pointed out that hospitals get COVID bonuses and said Biden government is ‘out of control’… (2022) The Daily Mail. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466285/The-truth-Joe-Rohans-controversial-guests-Dr-Malone-Dr-McCullough.html (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
Great Barrington Declaration (2020) Great Barrington Declaration. Available at: https://gbdeclaration.org/ (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
[At a time when the U.S. needed Covid-19 dialogue between scientists, Francis Collins moved to shut it down (2021) STAT News. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/23/at-a-time-when-the-u-s-needed-covid-19-dialogue-between-scientists-francis-collins-moved-to-shut-it-down/ | ‘There needs to be a quick and devastating take down’: Emails show how Fauci and head of NIH worked to discredit three experts… (2021). The Daily Mail. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10324873/Emails-reveal-Fauci-head-NIH-colluded-try-smear-experts-called-end-lockdowns.html | Anthony Fauci used ‘science’ to silence unsettled debate. Why that’s so dangerous (2022). AZ Central. Available at: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2022/09/04/dr-anthony-fauci-wielded-science-silence-unsettled-debate/7960146001/ (Accessed:03 February 2024)].
Vaccine Ingredients – Fetal Cells (2022). Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Available at: https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/fetal-tissues (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
Vivek Ramaswamy Attacks ‘Wokeism, Transgenderism, Climate-ism, COVIDism’ At Florida Freedom Summit (2023). YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLuhsmxlNuY (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
What Is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design. Available at: https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/ (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
Catechism – Paragraph 07: The Fall. The Holy See. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_two/chapter_one/article_1/paragraph_7_the_fall.index.html (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
Cyberpunk 2077. YouTube. (2020) Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDRPFhae2SI (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
Darwin of the Gaps. Discovery. (2008) Available at: https://www.discovery.org/a/4529/ (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. (2011). Yuval Noah Harari. Google E-book edition. London: VINTAGE.
Yuval Noah Harari: “Every crisis is also an opportunity (2020) UNESCO. Available at: https://courier.unesco.org/en/articles/yuval-noah-harari-every-crisis-also-opportunity (Accessed: 30 January 2024).
Molecular Engineering: An approach to the development of general capabilities formolecular manipulation (1981) K. Eric Drexler – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Available at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.78.9.5275 (Accessed: 30 January 2024).
Molecular Engineering of Viral Gene Delivery Vehicles. (2009) David V. Schaffer, et. al. National Library of Medicine. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2683887/ (Accessed: 30 January 2024).
Might SARS‐CoV‐2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture? (2020). Karl Sirotkin and Dan Sirotkin – National Library of Medicine. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/#bies202000091-bib-0003 (Accessed: 30 January 2024).
Debating Darwin: How Jerry Fodor Slid Down the Slippery Slope to Anti-Darwinism (2011). Alex Rosenberg – YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4sJj888Qnc (Accessed: 30 January 2024).
How to Make Sense of the Pandemic. Alex Rosenberg. Available at: https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/how-to-make-sense-of-the-pandemic. [Accessed 02 February 2024].
Darwin Devolves. (2019). Micheal Behe. Google E-book edition. New York: Harper Collins.
The Origins of Covid-19 — Why It Matters (and Why It Doesn’t). (2023). Lawrence O. Gostin, J.D., and Gigi K. Gronvall, Ph.D – The New England Journal of Medicine. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/#bies202000091-bib-0003 (Accessed: 30 January 2024).
James Lovelock: ‘The biosphere and I are both in the last 1% of our lives’ (2020). The Guardian. Available at: https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/18/james-lovelock-the-biosphere-and-i-are-both-in-the-last-1-per-cent-of-our-lives. [Accessed 02 February 2024].
Survival rates for COVID-19 misrepresented in posts. (2021). Associated Press. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-970830023526 [Accessed 02 February 2024].
Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Available at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2022376118 [Accessed 02 February 2024].
Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children (2022). Open Access Tex (OAT). Available at: https://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php [Accessed 03 February 2024].
The Lynching of Bill Dembski (2000). Discovery Institute Available at: https://www.discovery.org/a/532/ [Accessed 03 February 2024].
Fauci: No scientific evidence the coronavirus was made in a Chinese lab (2020). National Geographic. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/anthony-fauci-no-scientific-evidence-the-coronavirus-was-made-in-a-chinese-lab-cvd [Accessed 03 February 2024].

Damian Tharcisius

MAKING SENSE OF
CULTURE

Covidism, Darwinism, and Design

COVIDISM, DARWINISM AND DESIGN

TO OR NOT TO DESIGN

THE ESTABLISHMENT'S RESPONSE

THE PROBLEM WITH
‘VACCINE HESITANCY’

THE TWO ‘ISMS’

DARWINISM

COVIDISM

DESIGN

VAXXERS, GLOBALISTS AND ‘THE CANCELLED’

GLOBALIST SCIENCE

DIRECTED VIRUS

CELEBRATING THE DARWINIAN PANDEMIC

THE PANDEMIC IS GOOD - ACCORDING TO DARWIN -

‘THE CANCELED’

IN CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

About Damian

Essays

Books

Podcast

Damian Tharcisius

COVIDISM, DARWINISM AND DESIGN

TO OR NOT TO DESIGN

THE ESTABLISHMENT'S RESPONSE

THE PROBLEM WITH ‘VACCINE HESITANCY’

THE TWO ‘ISMS’

DARWINISM

COVIDISM

DESIGN

VAXXERS, GLOBALISTS AND ‘THE CANCELLED’

GLOBALIST SCIENCE

DIRECTED VIRUS

CELEBRATING THE DARWINIAN PANDEMIC

THE PANDEMIC IS GOOD - ACCORDING TO DARWIN -

‘THE CANCELED’

IN CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

About Damian

Essays

Books

Podcast

THE PROBLEM WITH
‘VACCINE HESITANCY’