The View From 1776

Muddled-head Evolutionary “Thinking”

Cell phones as a secret tool to create socialist heaven-on-earth.

———————
My friend Heidi Hoff Wurst emailed the following article (the source is unknown to me).

“Cell Phone Radiation May Speed Human Evolution

“A new study by European Union (EU) researchers shows that the electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones can cause DNA mutations that reproduce, “opening the door to new vistas in human evolution,” according to a spokesman for the cell phone industry.

“A lot of the news you’ll hear in the coming days will dwell on the potential for health damage, tumors and the like,” said the unnamed industry source. “But if Darwin was right, mutations are good for our species. The faster our cells mutate the faster we’ll evolve and fulfill the dreams of generations of evolutionary biologists.”

“The spokesman acknowledged that during the initial waves of mutation the natural selection process “could get messy,” but he insisted that “most mutations would be beneficial—potentially yielding larger brains, additional ears (‘Can you hear me now?’) or even an extra appendage for holding a cell phone while driving.”

” “Thanks to cell phones, you can accomplish everything more quickly,” said the source. “We’ve taken Darwinian evolution from the realm of wishful thinking for atheists, to something that may produce results in a generation or less. We’ve just turbo-charged the time factor and reduced the element of chance making evolution faster and more reliable.”

“One cell phone company is reportedly already focus-group testing ads with the slogan “We’re the missing link.” “

——————-
One line from the article says it all:  “But if Darwin was right, mutations are good for our species. The faster our cells mutate the faster we’ll evolve and fulfill the dreams of generations of evolutionary biologists.”

This ludicrous statement typifies the muddle-headed contradictions that pass for science in today’s educational system.  Teachers unions and national-state planners are so intently focused upon teaching Darwinian evolutionary dogma as a cornerstone of socialist collectivism and moral relativity that they don’t even notice that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths (or, if you prefer, speaking with forked tongues).

First, the most basic purpose of Darwin’s hypothesis was to deny the existence of God by attempting to prove that every life form is the result of random chance, that there is no intelligent design to any of the life forms on earth.  If that can be “scientifically” established, said Darwin and his supporters like Thomas Huxley, then there is no such thing as morality, no such thing as sin.  Instead, there is nothing more than the struggle for survival.

Darwinian “scientists” are at pains to tell us that, contrary to Biblical doctrine and moral philosophy, there was no purpose to life.  It just happened.  There is, therefore, clearly no such thing as higher or lower forms of life, nor is there any “evolutionary dream” to be fulfilled.  Things are no more than what they happen, at the moment, to be. 

There is nothing to say that evolution will not wipe out all the presumably “accumulated” physical and mental characteristics of humans.  Random genetic mutations theoretically could produce almost anything.  All that Darwin said is that whatever random genetic material at a given time equips its possessors to survive in greater numbers will cause that genetic material to tend toward dominance. 

It’s just as easy to envision a brutish, immensely strong, leathery-skinned creature of limited intelligence wiping out humans as to imagine that humans will evolve to some higher and better form (remember that there is no good or bad, better or worse, in Darwin’s scheme; just physical survivability).

How then to square that with the putatively scientific statement: “But if Darwin was right, mutations are good for our species. The faster our cells mutate the faster we’ll evolve and fulfill the dreams of generations of evolutionary biologists”?

Packing this sort of nonsense into the heads of inexperienced students, one may suppose, is what liberals mean when they protest that they want children to learn to think, not to absorb specific information about academic subjects.

The most important thing to notice, however, is the real point of such double-talk: its unstated subtext that intellectual state-planners can structure society in ways that will shape humans into the types ideally suited for the earthly “perfection” of communal, socialistic living.  That is the real dream of evolutionary biologists.

Cell phones might just turn out to be one of their secret weapons in creating the Brave New World.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/26 at 06:11 PM
  1. Wow, incredible. I'm trying not to be rude here, but does it ever occur to you that your arguments are totally without merit? surprised

    Paragraph 1. It reportedly was a cell phone company spokeman statement that you base your essay on, but you imply that it is researchers, scientists, and Darwin who much the statements attributed to the cell phone spokesperson. This is known as a strawman argument.

    Paragraph 2. Evolutionary theory does not state that more mutations means more evolution, and science books and teachers that I know do not make such statements either. Also, Darwin's theory is not a dogma; it is a scientific theory that has stood the test of time, as has the theory of gravitation, the theory of electromagnetic force, quantum theory, and many other theories on which we base our everyday life and scientific and engineering thinking. A scientific theory must have a body of testable evidence that supports it, and no testable evidence that disputes it. Evolutionary theory passes this test. Creationism is a dogma, which requires that people believe without testing. If you wish to believe in such a thing; fine, go ahead. But you cannot teach it as a scientific theory because it cannot be tested, which, by the very definition of the scientific method, means that it is not a scientific theory.

    Paragraph 3. The purpose of Darwin's hypothesis was to explain the mechanism behind species change and variation through the eons. The mechanism is natural selection. The "no such thing as morality or sin" quote has to do with how evolution works; it has nothing to do with how human society is governed (another strawman).

    Paragraph 4. The vast majority of Darwinian scientists are **not** at pains to tell us anything about Biblical doctrine or moral philosphy. It is outside their field of expertise.

    Paragraph 5. Essentially correct, except that the probability of such a thing happening is too small to be considered. Again, you're just trying to set up a type of strawman so you can wipe it out in Paragraph 7.

    Paragraph 6. Ditto

    Paragraph 7. This is not a scientific statement, it's your strawman talking again (remember, it's the cell phone company spokesman, not a scientist).

    Paragraph 8. Nobody that I know of is packing such nonsense into the minds of children. I hope my children learn to think critically and not just take what authorities state as gospel.

    Paragraph 9. "...shape humans into the types ideally suited for the earthly
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/31  at  07:03 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.