The thing about poetry is that it offers the chance to connect man's drives to articulation: to cut this off, leads, as Kristeva has shown, to suicide, drug use, and other modern plagues.
What I wonder about the connection between articulation (i.e. philology) and Darwinisim is if its current uses won't ultimately outmode man's contribution to the field. Man could, therefore, be outmoded by computers, according to this system, because it is the computer that is making all the algorithms. And if it is interpretation that is key, why not also allow poetic interpretation, for the occasional gems that approach may offer?
Therefore, those evolutionists who were just using a piece of evolution for their specialist studies might want to consider the bigger picture of the future of university studies, which may hinge on the future of the humanities, which are the crème de la crème of the university. If we see university funding and prerequisites as increasingly counter productive, is this not a sign that the spirit of certain methodologies has hurt man, and not helped him? For example, the university man - like machine - is now supposed annually to produce a certain amount of visible output. We may argue: if he is worthy of such a high station, he must produce a certain number of papers. Evolution must be measured!
If only one nomenclature is ruling the academic field, it will die.
I am convinced of this because I was raised in a different time, when it thrived (or, at least where I was standing) - and it thrived because there was healthy debate of different views. If people who think differently are not given visibility, blindness to one's faults increases. This is a basic life truth: tension in life motivates a person to overcome their imperfections.
Even in the Vatican, a special role is played by the so-called devil's advocate. And while it is only natural to help and promote the views of the like-minded, academia in setting the example ought give due respect to people who articulate different views, and also either work with them, or bring them into the dialogue by responding to them in civil fashion. After all, diametric opposition often prompts an articulate response. Another example of this is the increasingly business-mindedness of academic institutions, connected to the economic adoption of evolutionary models.
To go back to the start of this post: man is a symbol-using animal. As the post linked to above argues, anyone with a degree ought to be thinking of writing in an intelligible way to the public about their findings, so the public understands the value of study. But study has become so specious that jargon cannot be understood by those in different fields. Knowledge is in some instances only relevant to a specific field.
Update: Here are two far more articulate posts on this topic that I would like to have consulted before writing this post. One might write pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt!, except such may not be the exclamation of the inferior author who best listen, before choosing words.