The American Humanist Association and other atheist advocates are pushing Congress to adopt February 12 as Darwin Day, commemorating the man most widely known for the theory of evolution.
And while they’re at it, the humanists/atheists want to shore up demagogic belief in global warming and demand that all those who question the safety of modern vaccines be silenced. In the name of science, of course.
“With climate change deniers endangering our environment and the anti-vaccination movement threatening our children’s health, there has never been a greater need for our politicians to stand up for science,” according to Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the secular humanists group. “Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has made immeasurable contributions to science and humanity.”
While evolution is taught in every public school science classroom in the nation, what is seldom even mentioned is that there is still controversy over Darwin’s ideas. More than 150 years after “Origin of Species” was published, Darwin’s version of evolution remains unproven – not that you would know it, because the progressive establishment has drummed into scientists’ heads the consequences of questioning Darwinian dogma.
That sort of talk will get you pelted with rotten fruits and vegetables in most academic settings, where Darwinism is the sacred scripture of the church of atheistic progressivism. You know them, the same movement that howls about not mixing science and religion whenever someone suggests a non-Darwinian explanation for the development of life on Earth.
The thing to understand about evolution is that Darwin’s theories didn’t deal simply with change in life forms, which anyone can observe for himself.
When two people have a baby, the child isn’t merely a carbon copy of the mother or father, but some new mixture of the two, and occasionally of recessive traits from farther removed ancestors. Similarly, no one disputes that organisms change throughout their life spans or that they can adapt to environmental stress.
Darwin’s idea was more radical, that such changes caused by environmental factors can accumulate to the point that they can cause a brand new species to emerge from an existing one.
To oversimplify for illustrative purposes, Darwin essentially proposed that an amoeba (or something like it) became so stressed by its environment that its descendants became men.
The problem with Darwinism is that the evidence for it is underwhelming at best.
Fossils are useless for proving evolution because simply putting two similar looking bones next to each other doesn’t prove that one animal became the second, or that they’re even related.
Darwin had no concept of modern genetics. Nonetheless, he thought that certain perceived similarities in the embryos of different animals were his best evidence for evolution. He based that part of his theory on drawings and research that were long ago disproven.
Yet, textbooks still occasionally treat students to those same drawings as evidence. For that matter, some evolutionists are still trying to recycle those old pepper moth photos that supposedly show how a population of moths changed color in the presence of air pollution.
The critical piece of evidence that would prove Darwin’s theory, of course, would be to observe the emergence of a new species from another due to environmental stress.
That’s the thing that has eluded scientists. There have been experiments that claim to have shown evolution in the lab, but the human factor directing them rules out their value as tests of natural evolution. There have been observations in nature of “incipient species,” breeds of animals that scientists think are on the verge of becoming separate species but that can still interbreed — sort of like the differences between a husky and a wolf.
But none of that gets you from, say, velociraptor to ostrich (to randomly pick two similarly built but otherwise very different animals).
There is a lot of evidence against Darwin’s notion that all species share a common ancestor. The fossil record shows repeated waves of change in lifeforms, such as the famed Cambrian explosion. Darwin’s theory suggests that the major phyla should have developed early and branched off into thousands of species, but fossils again show something different, that phyla developed relatively late after life began. Fossils — at least as far back as the record goes — also suggest that life began at multiple points and in multiple forms.
Part of the problem with evolutionary theory is that biologists have at least a couple of dozen definitions of what constitutes a species. Some are obviously necessary — obviously a fern is different enough from a gazelle that they won’t have many shared traits. Others seem more gratuitous and open to interpretation. If a mouse sneaks on board a truck and finds itself transported to a city hundreds of miles away, is it really a different species? If two animals can mate and have fertile offspring, are they really different species?
If you don’t know what you’re looking for, how can you say you’ve found it?
As for the notion that Darwinism has made “immeasurable contributions” to science and the world, that’s a flimsy claim at best. Evolutionary theory isn’t necessary to practice medicine, and it’s positively antiquated in fields like genetics.
Socially, it’s never led to anything good, and it has influenced several poisonous notions, such as eugenics and Nazi theories about a master race.
Currently, Darwinism is dogma whose supporters claim to be defending science. But they are defending science in the same way that geocentrists defended science against the likes of Galileo. The only difference is the geocentrists of the Jesuit order allowed Galileo to continue his work, even under house arrest. The Darwinists just want to shut down the blasphemers.
None of this is to say that students should become Creationists or shouldn’t study Darwin. His legacy can still prove educational. But there are people with new ideas and new takes on existing evidence who must be allowed to speak, do their research and share their ideas without the Darwinian Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
Darwin Day is just a bad idea that would wrongly celebrate bad science.