The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read

§ BUY MY BOOK

Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Saturday, June 04, 2005

Begley Begs a Question

Is social-justice dogma science?

———————
Wall Street Journal science columnist Sharon Begley is still riding the Darwinian donkey and proclaiming it to be a contender for the Kentucky Derby.  Her latest column can be accessed here, if you are a subscriber to the Online Journal.

In her latest put-down of moral principle and worshipful exaltation of secular humanism, she writes:

“Which brings us to evolution. Advocates of teaching creationism (or its twin, intelligent design) have adopted the slogan, “Teach the controversy.” That sounds eminently sensible. But it is disingenuous. For as the auxin saga shows, virtually no area of science is free of doubt or debate or gaps in understanding.

“Every scientific theory is constantly under scrutiny and has unknowns at its edges,” says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. “Singling out evolution makes it appear that evolution is suspect, which it isn’t.”

“For instance, you can start a bar fight if you ask astronomers what the dark matter that pervades the universe is. But up-to-date textbooks rightly note that dark matter exists, even though its composition remains an enigma.

“Physicists have been known to sputter in rage over the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which underlies all of modern electronics and often is called the most successful theory in the history of science (physicists aren’t known for low self-esteem). Yet quantum mechanics also says the subatomic realm is inherently uncertain.”

“... Evolution is as well-established by empirical observation as other sciences. There is no serious debate that evolution happens, only deeper questions (left to college and graduate school), such as whether it proceeds gradually or in spasms. “It’s dishonest to single out evolution,” Prof. Carroll says, “when the very nature of science is to have unresolved questions.”

Once again, let’s look at the facts.

First, she writes, “..virtually no area of science is free of doubt or debate or gaps in understanding.”  But that is not a factual description of the position that she and secular-religious scientists take.  They insist that there must be no doubt or debate, because, as Ms. Begley also writes, “Evolution is as well-established by empirical observation as other sciences. There is no serious debate that evolution happens…”

Questioning Darwinian evolution dogma is equated with ignorance by the people Ms. Begley defends.  To doubt the revealed truth from Saint Charles Darwin is to commit the crime of interfering with drumming socialism into the brains of callow youth. 

Darwin forthrightly asserted that evolution is an atheistic and anti-Christian doctrine.  Liberal-socialist religion, as noted in many other postings on this website, rests upon the belief that all of life, including political and social institutions, is continually evolving, and that only the material factors of the physical world control that socialistic evolution.

Second, there never has been, nor can there ever be any empirical observations of evolution.  Worshippers of evolution insist that it is a process requiring tens of millions of years, necessarily proceeding in such tiny steps that no one can possibly witness it in action.  We must accept Darwinian doctrine purely on faith, because it is an essential underpinning of the socialist welfare state.

Every proposition of Darwinian evolution is nothing more than speculative inference from looking at differences and similarities among species, in fossil records and in present-day specimens.  Read works by every evolutionist, beginning with Charles Darwin, and you will encounter hundreds of uses of words and phrases such as “one may suppose,” “might have been,” “it is likely,” and so on. 

There are almost as many theories about the actual process of speciation (the process by which theoretically a group of plants or animals evolve to such a degree that they no longer can propagate with members of their earlier group) as there are leading biologists.

Even the relatively straightforward taxonomy branch of biology that classifies individual fossils and actual specimens into species and other groups is one of such heated controversy that biologists can’t agree about how to classify some individual animals or plants.

Third, the insurmountable problem for the Darwinian evolution hypothesis is that it starts with a metaphysical value judgment.  Science can deal only with examination, description, and explanation of directly observable physical phenomena.  Darwinian evolution, by the terms of science itself, is not science, because it starts with pure specualtion about First Causes, an area entirely off-limits to the physical sciences.

The point on which Darwinian evolution stands or falls is the origin of life itself.  No scientist has ever come close to demonstrating how life came into existence on the earth.  Darwin’s speculations, starting with square one, require that life came into existence purely by chance, through a combination of already existing natural substances and natural forces.

Since all scientific research has come up goose eggs in its efforts to demonstrate scientifically that life commenced by random chance, the entirety of Darwinian evolution doctrine is no more than a speculative hypothesis.

Finally, why then has Darwin’s metaphysical speculation come to be so widely accepted as “scientific” fact?

The answer lies in understanding the ethos of 1859.  Henri de Saint-Simon in the 1820s had published his works as the first codification of socialism, and his colleague Auguste Comte in the following decades published his massive works on Positivism and what he called The Religion of Humanity.  Saint-Simon and Comte both declared that spiritual religion was superstitious ignorance, that the only object of worship was Humanity in the abstract.  Their doctrine merged in German universities in the 1830s with Hegel’s concept of the weltgeist and the immanentization of history as a spiritual force that transformed political society.  Shortly thereafter, Karl Marx stood Hegelianism on its head, rejecting the idea of a world spirit and declaring that the only operative forces were those of secular materialism.  Moreover, declared Marx, there is no such thing as human nature, the political state can reshape human behavior patterns to create what Lenin later called The New Soviet Man.

In 1848 Marx published the “Communist Manifesto.”  When Darwin published “On the Origin” in 1859, that same year Utilitarian-turned-socialist John Stuart Mill published “On Liberty.”  The idea of socialism was gaining converts in the universities and, to a much lesser extent, among political leaders.  The most enthusiastic supporters of Darwin’s doctrine initially were the British Marxists, who saw it as confirmation of Marx’s purely secular and materialistic process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis, i.e., political and social evolution.  This, of course, is the basis of present-day New York Times editorialists’ blather about the “evolving” Constitution. 

Of particular relish to die-hard evolutionary dogmatists, and to the hedonists of today, is the observation by Darwin’s friend Thomas Huxley that Darwin had proved that there is no such thing as morality, right, or wrong; there is only the struggle for survival.  However convenient this may be to young people intent upon sexual promiscuity and drugs, it is also, unfortunately, precisely the basis for socialist totalitarianism in Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, and Hitler’s National Socialist Germany.

Visit MoveOff Network Members

Posted by Thomas E. Brewton on 06/04 at 11:15 PM
Junk Science • (0) Comments
Print this ArticleEmail A FriendPermalink