The War on Darwinism

Charles Darwin once said that "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Unfortunately, such balance is not so prevalant in today's atheistic culture of learning.

On April 9, 1989, the prominant neodarwinist, Richard Dawkins, expressed his heartfelt antipathy to the New York Times:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

Why such a dramatic shift in the attitude between Darwin and his modern-day disciples?

What forces drive their zealotry when neodarwinism is called into question?

Some suggest that "fundamentalism" and "religion" are responsible for the ignorance of scientific facts. Yet, few examples of "fundamentalism" exceed Mr. Dawkins' self-pious creed.

While Communist China allows scientists to question many elements that the neodarwinists have propagated over the years, it is not unusual for a biology teacher to face consequenses for expressing skepticism in regards to evolutionary biology here in America.

Take Roger DeHart, for example. DeHart was a beloved biology teacher from Burlington, Oregon, who provided his students an open forum to discuss concepts of neodarwinism openly and critically. He was eventually banned from teaching within the district ever again.

His crime?

Supplying outside materials, allowing students to debate intelligent design, and presenting ample evidence that was unfavorable to the claims of Darwinian evolution. More alarming, he never even mentioned the word "God."

Meanwhile, back in China, Jun-Yuan Chen, an internationally respected paleontologist, has made discoveries that have rocked the scientific establishment.

From an article in The Boston Globe, May 30, 2000:

According to Chen, the conventional forces of evolution can't account for the speed, the breadth, and onetime nature of "the Cambrian explosion," a geologic moment more than 500 million years ago when virtually all the major animal groups first appear in the fossil record.

Rather than Charles Darwin's familiar notion of survival of the fittest, Chen said he believes scientists should focus on the possibility that a unique harmony between forms of life allowed complex organisms to emerge. If all we have to depend upon is chance and competition, the conventional forces of evolution, Chen said, "then complex, highly evolved life, such as the human, has no reason to appear."

Later in the same article arrives an astounding merge: members of China's Communist Party and creationists, who share a skepticism for Darwinian evolutionary biology.

"Evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge," declared the Communist Party's Guang Ming Daily last December in describing the fossils in southern China. "In the beginning, Darwinian evolution was a scientific theory. . . . In fact, evolution eventually changed into a religion." Taunts from the Communist Party wouldn't carry much sting, however, if some Western scientists weren't also concerned about weaknesses in so-called neo-Darwinism, the dominant view of evolution over the last 50 years.

"NeoDarwinism is dead," said Eric Davidson, a geneticist and textbook writer at the California Institute of Technology. He joined a recent gathering of 60 scientists from around the world near Chengjiang, where Chen had found his first impressions of Haikouella five years ago.

Could it be that the Communist Party in China is more open-minded and intellectually honest than the neodarwinists in America, who claim a tax-funded monopoly in our schools and college campuses?

Is it so far-fetched to point out that no random genetic mutations have successfully proven any viability to neodarwinist claims since the theory of evolution emerged?

Neodarwinists proudly point to fruit flies as evidence for genetic mutations, because they have grown an extra pair of wings in many of their experiments. One problem: the flies are actually degenerating in their capabilities, rather than improving, condescending the survival of the fittest. It is now harder for the flies to fly off the ground. To make matters worse, they cannot survive outside of the lab.

The most evidence we have of any genetic mutations are crippled and dead organisms that have emerged as a result of lab experiments.

In spite of the iron fist that the neodarwinists may have over our schools, a recent Zogby poll has indicated that most Americans are not in alignment with their agenda.

According to the poll, 71% of Americans agree that "Biology teachers should teach Darwin's Theory of Evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it," while only 15% agreed that "Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory and the scientific evidence that supports it."

This counter-cultural surge is also advocated by scientists who represent a small minority within the scientific community, but a large percentage of America that argues in favor of more objective education.

In an advertisement that appeared in the prestigious New York Review of Books, over 100 scientists, including scholars from Yale, Princeton, MIT, and the Smithsonian signed on to this statement:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Atheofascists Petition Against the Creation Museum

It's amazing what passes for science today. A secular consensus somehow equates that any opposition towards a dominant scientific theory is irrational - especially if it could lead to a debate. We can't let that happen, can we?

So it's not surprising that Dr. Eugenie Scott, the Director of the National Center for Science Education, has been out trying to convince other scientists to sign petitions against the Creation Museum, which is scheduled to open in less than two weeks.

Dr. John Pearse, the President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, has joined the chorus by writing the following in response to Scott's letter:

"Museum of make-believe facts being opened in the Cincinnati area. She [Eugenie Scott] is directing it mainly to our members in the Kentucky-Ohio-Indiana area, but the Core Officers and I think it should go out to all of you. The new museum could be a fun thing to go to if it was taken as a sort of Disneyland of anti-intellectualism. However, it is a serious frontal attack on evidence-based reasoning, and as such is a real threat to educating an informed, modern citizenry."

Sorry, Doc. When you are challenged with an alternative viewpoint backed by 55 videos, amongst many other resources that the Creation Museum has to offer, calling it the "Disneyland of anti-intellectualism" doesn't end the debate.

If Pearse was the least bit unreasonable in his argument that "evidence-based reasoning" is threatened by the sight of a Creation Museum, then Scott might as well consider a lobotomy. She resorts to scare tactics directed at college-bound students and their parents:

"Students who accept such material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis."

On the other hand, she must wonder why so many scientists with PhDs have devoted their passion towards defending and rationalizing Creation Science.

In a letter to Pearse, she continues her anti-religious tirade:

"This museum is viewed with dismay by teachers and scientists because it will present as scientifically valid religious views such as special creation, a 10,000 year old Earth, Noah’s Flood, and the like."

Why is the Darwinian community threatened by this museum?

A few possibilities - Darwinism is like a religion, those who subscribe to evolutionary biology in full accept it as fact, and are unwilling to debate it. Another possibility could be much worse: they will destroy religious freedom at all costs, even at the cost of our constitutional rights.

How is such an activist movement helpful for democracy, let alone science?

If you aren't doommongering in favor of a dominant theory, you're considered a Nazi. That's basically the rhetoric of the global warming alarmists. Similarly, the Darwinists have enormous power that they refuse to give up. They have undoubtedly succeeded in their social engineering crusade in our public schools.

Yet, one can only hope to see real scientists emerge and approach the subject objectively enough to engage in a healthy debate.

Beware of God

In Sisters, Oregon, a substitute biology teacher was fired not for preaching Islamic Jihad, not for possession of child pornography, but much worse: passing out an article in favor of intelligent design.

Alongside of pro-evolutionary materials, Kris Helphinstine introduced a creationist perspective from Ken Hamm, the founder of Answers in Genesis, in an effort to encourage critical thinking in the classroom.

Also included in the controversy was a PowerPoint presentation that correctly linked eugenics experiments with Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood. Historically accurate - eugenics science encouraged the Holocaust; Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an impassioned eugenist. Although the 27 year old substitute teacher wasn't using the soapbox as an outlet to preach creationism, he had apparently broken the law regardless.

In his explanation for the firing, Michael Gould, the president of Sisters School District Board reminds us that sensitivity, not education, is the top priority:

"I thought he departed from the accepted curriculum... and he exercised poor judgment on some material in a sensitive arena."

Mark Looy of Answers in Genesis offered his input:

"The sad incident in central Oregon exposes the general state of America’s public schools. You don’t even have to teach creation in school, but if you quote a creationist writer and also question evolution, you can be fired."

Or compared to 9/11 hijackers - last November, David Van Biema of Time magazine did just that:

"…a growing proportion of the profession is experiencing what one major researcher calls 'unprecedented outrage' at perceived insults to research and rationality, ranging from the alleged influence of the Christian right on Bush Administration science policy to the fanatic faith of the 9/11 terrorists to intelligent design's ongoing claims. Some are radicalized enough to publicly pick an ancient scab: the idea that science and religion, far from being complementary responses to the unknown, are at utter odds…."

Helphinstine shares his reaction with The Oregonian:

"I thought, 'Hey, this is a great chance to get kids thinking, I did not realize how sensitive it was in this specific community."

Sorry, Kris. In our public schools, sensativity matters; but not so much facts. But more importantly, you shouldn't talk about Nazi Germany without equating them with Jerry Falwell or George Bush. And anything that even remotely contradicts evolutionary biology, including The Bible itself, will not sit well with the nanny state.

And Kris, if you ever consider homeschooling your children, don't do it in Germany. Evidently, it's still a fascist hell of a country.

Childhood Heroes Collide

In Ohio, my home state, a critical senate electoral crusade has taken shape between Mike DeWine and Sherrod Brown. On the sidelines, two of my childhood heroes – Bernie Kosar and Michael J. Fox – were endorsing the candidates.

Former Cleveland Browns quarterback Bernie Kosar, a future Hall of Famer, has endorsed Mike DeWine. Kosar is one of the most beloved athletes in the history of Cleveland. DeWine’s efforts to keep the Browns in Cleveland was the highlight of his radio ad, which applauded DeWine’s bipartisanship. While DeWine is a strong social conservative on key issues, he has crossed party lines on gun control, guest worker programs, and border security.

According to News Meat, Kosar has a record of making contributions to help elect Republicans. The source indicates that he’s given $82,200 towards Republican campaigns. Needless to say, Kosar “swings both ways.” Kosar joined an odd pack of Democrat Ron Klein’s contributors, which included Rosie O'Donnell, Barbra Streisand, and Andrew Tobias.

Sherrod Brown has campaigned on "safe" issues, like health care, and has portrayed the DeWine campaign as desparate, smeary, and distortive. It was nice to see this ad for a change, regarding DeWine's campaign, which has also relied on negative advertising for the most part.



Not surprisingly, actor Michael J. Fox has advocated for embryonic stem-cell research, which has been suggested to treat Parkinson’s disease. He has been a vocal supporter for Sherrod Brown. Headlines were made after Fox made an ad in support for Claire McCaskill in Missouri. Rush Limbaugh was quick to suggest that Fox’s evident symptoms were a result of avoiding his medication.

Fox's condition is devastating for a lifetime Back to the Future fan to watch.




Rush could have focused on this potentially misleading comment instead – “Unfortunately, Sen. Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research… Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope.” Even a “progressive” columnist agrees that the remark was misleading. The columnist admits, “…it is true that James Talent has never actively attempted to criminalize stem cell research.”

In an interview with Katie Couric, Fox said, "The irony is that I was too medicated. I was dyskinesic." Fox has also crossed party lines, endorsing Republicans like Arlen Specter and Mike Castle, who have supported embryonic stem-cell research. If I was suffering from Parkinson's to the point where I couldn't talk without my medication, I too, would do anything to get a cure.

In response to Fox's ad, a handful of celebrities - Jim Caviezel, Jeff Suppan, Patricia Heaton, Kurt Warner, and Mike Sweeney made an ad opposing Missouri's Amendment 2.



Mike DeWine has long advocated on a pro-life platform, while Sherrod Brown, while less vocal on life and death issues, had attempted to block a ban on partial-birth abortion. DeWine is also opposed to federal funding in support for embryonic stem-cell research. "I am against taking federal dollars to destroy human life," he contends.

The question raised over the stem-cell issue is whether it demeans the pro-life cause more than it promotes it. In principle, most conservatives believe that life begins at conception, making the stem-cell debate valid amongst fellow conservatives. However, if there is potential after all to cure Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries, it could very well be the pro-life thing to do.

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict," Martin Luther King, Jr. has suggested. At the risk of abandoning the reasoning behind this quote I endorse on many issues, I consider myself "cautiously neutral" on embryonic stem-cell research. While a well-informed population should always take sides, we often do so long before the facts come out.

Senator Chuck Schumer is also campaigning for Sherrod Brown, although they have divergent views on our national security. Schumer has supported the Patriot Act, while Brown has opposed it. Anyways, Schumer had this to say about the opponents of embryonic stem-cell research:

“The trouble with this group, which I call the theocrats, is they want their faith to dictate what the government does. That, in a word, is un-American. That is exactly what the Founding Fathers put down their plows and took up muskets to fight.”

Schumer isn’t the most persuasive campaigner, but he may have a point. Filter out his trash-talk, like “theocrats” and “un-American” as he frequently describes anyone who even smells conservative. Those terms serve as a distraction to the real issue at hand. We can admire the fact that faith-based politicians have a sense of accountability, and still contend that faith-based policies deserve the same skepticism that any other policy should face.

I agree that we must use our conscience in the field of scientific advancement, which has crossed the line in the cases of Josef Mengele’s experiments with exterminated Jews in Nazi Germany, the horrific procedure of partial-birth abortion, and San Francisco’s tax-funded sex-change operations. It is fool-hearted to assume that modern science is somehow infallible, and that no ethical boundaries should exist. We have an obligation, if not to God, than to each other, to draw a line.

A line is crossed when human beings are treated like laboratory rats, while some would still consider it immoral to conduct scientific experiments on animals. In Vogue magazine, Ingrid Newkirk, the president of PETA proclaimed, “Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” They aren’t nicknamed “People for the Unethical Treatment of Humans” for nothing.

Yet, I find the opponents of embryonic stem-cell research to be a losing issue for many reasons. They have tried time and again to turn the subject into an abortion debate. While the subject of frozen embryos is rightfully a disturbing topic, you have to wonder exactly when a fertilized human being can feel pain, especially if they are frozen.

Lack of evidence in support for theoretical cures is another grave concern. Would it make sense to pursue embryonic stem-cell research without hard evidence, proving embryonic stem-cells to deliver on its promises? Many countries in Asia and Europe have contributed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and have delivered no promises from it so far.

Sometimes, the best solution isn’t the most sensitive solution. I say that because this will sound radical at first glance. I find it hard to support the idea of in vitro fertilization to begin with, due to the fact that child abuse, neglect, and abandonment tend to escape the minds of infertile couples. In other words, couples incapable of having children on their own should be encouraged to adopt an unwanted child who has already been born.

In a perfect world, there would be no infertility, or child abandonment. But to make ends meet, people will have to compromise their own self-interests and contribute something to society, given the fact that they want to raise children. While it may force you to compromise, it’s a far more compassionate effort to make every child a wanted child.