Sons of Darwin

Andy writes:

Wow, from your lack of understanding about what evolution is to your outright lie about transitional forms, I?¢??m not even sure where to begin?¢?¬¶

?¢?¬¶why is it that it seems that Christians are the most willing to lie about evolution? Didn?¢??t God have some rule about lying?

I guess that’s what I get for not calling my attorney to check my posts before I upload.

Perhaps you’d prefer the term “intermediate forms”. The fact remains that you can’t show me one fossil that is half-bird, half-somethingelse.

Nor can you explain to me the process by which the first single-celled orgranism spontaneously created itself out of primordial muck. And if belief in that miraculous reversal of the Second Law of Thermodynamics isn’t metaphysical, then I don’t know what is.

Fred Reed–who is not a Christian as far as I know–tells it like it is:

Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science).

First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. (And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way.) Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened. Asking them for evidence usually aroused annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility.

As an example, it seems plausible to evolutionists that life arose by chemical misadventure. By this they mean (I think) that they cannot imagine how else it might have come about. (Neither can I. Does one accept a poor explanation because unable to think of a good one?) This accidental-life theory, being somewhat plausible, is therefore accepted without the usual standards of science, such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Putting it otherwise, evolutionists are too attached to their ideas to be able to question them.

Consequently, discussion often turns to vague and murky assertion. Starlings are said to have evolved to be the color of dirt so that hawks can?¢??t see them to eat them. This is plausible. But guacamayos and cockatoos are gaudy enough to be seen from low-earth orbit. Is there a contradiction here? No, say evolutionists. Guacamayos are gaudy so they can find each other to mate. Always there is the pat explanation. But starlings seem to mate with great success, though invisible. If you have heard a guacamayo shriek, you can hardly doubt that another one could easily find it. Enthusiasts of evolution then told me that guacamayos were at the top of their food chain, and didn?¢??t have predators. Or else that the predators were colorblind. On and on it goes. But?¢?¬¶is any of this established?

Second, evolution seemed more a metaphysics or ideology than a science. The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles. You demonstrated chemistry, but believed evolution. If you have ever debated a Marxist, or a serious liberal or conservative, or a feminist or Christian, you will have noticed that, although they can be exceedingly bright and well informed, they display a maddening imprecision. You never get a straight answer if it is one they do not want to give. Nothing is ever firmly established. Crucial assertions do not tie to observable reality. Invariably the Marxist (or evolutionist) assumes that a detailed knowledge of economic conditions under the reign of Nicholas II or whatever substitutes for being able to answer simple questions, such as why Marxism has never worked: the Fallacy of Irrelevant Knowledge. And of course almost anything can be made believable by considering only favorable evidence and interpreting hard.

Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does?¢??except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions?¢??overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism.

I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn?¢??t a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use)?¢??of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.

This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. ?¢??Creationist?¢?? is to evolution what ?¢??racist?¢?? is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science.

Amen, brother.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s