In future please take the time to address these points seriously, rather than simply use some superficial details as an attempt to create controversy. Considering the nature of your post, I do not feel particularly inclined to offer you a serious reply, but for the sake of others here I will do so. Before I begin I should say that it is incorrect to assume that the traditionalist criticisms of evolution and similar modern theories are made on the same level as those coming from fundamentalist religious circles. Although it is evident that these two are related, the traditionalist position rests on the assertion that the modern theory of evolution exists for two reasons...
1. To explain the origins of man in the absence of metaphysical knowledge which had been lost in the West, due to the world view described by Nasr in the video.
2. It was popularized and became dogmatically enforced because it helped to support the doctrine of progress which in turn helps to justify the errors of modern man.Evola on Evolution (pages 178 - 183 of the original text)
Evolutionism...provides a typical example of reasoning in the absence of sufficient evidence. Modern science starts from the gratuitous and crude axiom that there is no reality outside sensorial...experience...and since it starts out from this axiom it will reason in accordance therewith, leaving out of account evidence that surpasses it. Now in the case of a reality that does surpass the sensorial and empirical order, any such reasoning must evidently be false...and it will demonstrate its falsity by replacing the missing evidence with purely functional hypotheses.
I would rather not discuss this matter further in this thread, there has already been a discussion regarding the traditionalist position on evolution in this forum and little progress was made. If you would like to continue this part of the discussion I will begin a new thread.
The second point regards the metaphysical significance of man. Far from being a simple egoism, it addresses the fundamental nature of man as he is prefigured in reality as such. The full extension of the possibilities contained within the human state allow for the transcendence of the individual and corporeal states to which he is confined by the dominant understanding of reality described by Nasr. The understanding of the universe which predominates in Westernized civilization, reduces man purely to his 'horizontal' extension, in which he is reduced to nothingness in the face of a lifeless cosmos. The vertical extension of man's being is completely unknown to modern man. Traditional man, on the other hand, begins from what is known inwardly and intuitively, the certainties of being and consciousness, and proceeds to apply these principles to the cosmic environment, which is not so concrete as modern man believes it to be but is rather a crystallization of possibilities which transcend the corporeal state.
I suggest reading and attempting to understand the metaphysical content of particularly the work of Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon before attempting to criticize the traditionalist position on more or less superficial grounds.
A good place to start would be Nasr's lecture titled In the Beginning was Consciousness
, which bears similarities to the lecture you have linked but underlines in more detail some of the logical inconsistencies in the modern understanding of what reality is.