Leftwing science, Part 2—Evolution
May 26, 2011
Part 1 was about how and why the left twists science. They desperately want to justify the transfer of power from the individual to the state but, given the track record of collectivism, they certainly can’t rely on the truth to make their case, can they? The left’s only hope is to create some “facts” which point in the direction they want to go, wrap those creations in the veneer of science, and then repeatedly shout “Scientific consensus!” until the gullible masses believe.We know they do it and we know how they do it. Now let’s get down to the nitty gritty and look at examples.
Evolution
Has there ever been a more useless and futile scientific theory than the Theory of Evolution? It doesn’t predict anything useful—they find fossils that are millions of years out of place monthly and at least one “missing link” every year that turns out to be an ordinary monkey when cooler heads take a look—and it doesn’t explain anything. If Evolution wasn’t the hook for the atheist hat it would be laughed out of the Scientific Theory Club.
Imagine what that Membership Committee meeting would be like:
“Let me see if I have this straight, Mr. Darwin. You are suggesting that species are created by natural selection, a process which you call ‘survival of the fittest,’ is that correct?”The tyranny over science by the Darwin paradigm is on display in the current issue of Discover Magazine. The following is on page 50, in an article about Ardipithecus ramidus (nicknamed Ardi), a creature whose 4.4-million-year-old bones were uncovered by paleoanthropologist Tim White in Ethiopia:
“Yes, sir.”
“And you proposed this theory more than 150 years ago. So how many examples of this process can you show us?”
“Um… well, none. We used to have some but a closer look showed they weren’t really new species.”
“What kind of proof do you have then, Mr. Darwin?”
“None so far. But I’m pretty sure this is what happens.”
“How wonderful for you. Do you have a prediction for when the next ‘evolution’ of a species might happen?”
“Well, no. These things take millions of years.”
“Point taken, but there are also millions of species so simple arithmetic suggests your process should happen fairly regularly. Any idea when the next one might happen?”
“No.”
“Have you tried making it happen in a laboratory?”
“Yeah, lots of times.”
“And how did that go?”
“Didn’t work.”
“Okay, so no proof. Well then, let’s approach the problem from a different angle. Is there something that would dis-prove your theory?”
“Not really.”
“Mr. Darwin, you have no examples, no proof, your theory makes no predictions about the future, and you can’t even make the process happen artificially in a lab to show it’s feasible. On top of all that, you admit that you won’t accept any evidence against the theory. Does that sum it up?”
“Uh, yeah, I guess.”
[Long pause]
“Mr. Darwin, don’t take this the wrong way—we don’t mean to be rude—but could you wait in the hallway while the committee discusses this matter? And please leave the Theory of Evolution’s membership pin there on the table when you leave.”
“Was Ardi a true biped? White and his collaborators looked to the remains of her upper leg and pelvis for clues. After years analyzing digital re-creations of the damaged bones, the group concluded what they had long suspected: The lower part of Ardi’s hip was powerfully primitive, adapted for climbing. In contrast, the upper part of the hip, the ilium, was surprisingly broad—a human-like adaptation for walking on the ground.” –Discover, May 2011 (emphasis mine)To summarize, the bones were so damaged, they—the “collaborators”—had to create digital facsimiles to study them, then they manipulated those facsimilies on their computer screens for years without deciding anything, and then one day they woke up and said, “Holy crap, it’s just like we thought! Ardi is a human ancestor—a missing link!”
The process by which they reached that conclusion can be called many things but science isn’t one of them.
The utter uselessness of the Theory of Evolution can be demonstrated by imagining Ardi’s discoverers digging up a 1965 Ford Mustang and comparing it to a 2011 Ford Mustang. They would see how the brakes evolved from simple mechanical contrivances to silicon-chip computerized no-skid brakes. They would see tires that evolved from vulnerable rubber to nearly impervious steel-belted radials. They would see how the engine became much more efficient and powerful. “Clearly, the Mustang evolved!” they would announce.
Of course it did, but how? We know in the Mustang’s case that evolution was driven by intelligent designers, not by the random chance of Darwinism. If it’s that easy for us to find an example of evolution by intelligent design, why do the Darwinists go ape-shit when somebody even mentions the notion in connection with life? Why are they so afraid of anything that even hints at the existence of God?
With zero examples of evolution by random mutation, shouldn’t they at least be open-minded?
The funny thing about atheists’ fanatical promotion of Darwinism is that most people of faith really don’t care how species are born. If God is the Creator, does it matter whether He created Man through a Darwinist survival-of-the-fittest system or did the work over the course of one hundred forty four hours in some kind of heavenly Pottery Barn? The issue is not about the existence of God. The issue is about Darwinist dogma hindering scientific advancement by creating an environment in which biologists dare not challenge the status quo.
It’s strange that we can’t move past this silly theory, given how many things we know that we didn’t know when Darwin formulated it. We know about epigenetics, for instance, which allows behavior to influence the genetic makeup of offspring: your exercise can make your child’s heart—and even your grandchild’s heart—stronger. That’s a direct contradiction of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” although nobody dares admit it. We know about cross-species sharing of genetic material, too, which also flies in the face of Darwinist dogma. You don’t have to be the fittest critter in town to survive, not if you have the ability to steal the fittest critter’s DNA!
Combine epigenetics with cross-species genetic thievery, then add the recently discovered fact that the world’s oceans are vast repositories of virus DNA—each teaspoonful of seawater contains 10 to 100 million viruses—and even the most close-minded Darwinist has to admit something besides simple-minded survival-of-the-fittest might be happening.
One would think. Turns out they will admit nothing of the sort.
The Theory of Evolution is the archetypal example of leftwing science, both because it’s the earliest example and because its passionate defense and promotion by political ideologues has become the model for all subsequent leftwing science. When you watch Global Warmists barking about “scientific consensus,” trying to marginalize dissent, and enforcing their dogma by government legislation, they’re simply following in the footsteps of the Darwinists, who fought this same battle earlier and won—that’s why our children are taught nothing about alternative ideas or contrary evidence.
In “Leftwing science, Part 3—The List,” you’ll finally see the rest of my list of various science nonsense promulgated by the left over the years.
From Reno, Nevada, USA
June 4, 2011 - JP, I love your website I think its so funny you always get the liberals good. We need men like you ever thought of running for office? - Devin C., North Dakota
J.P. replies: I’m too old, too blunt, and too grumpy for politics. But if Sarah Palin asked me to be her running mate... you betcha!
