Last week we discussed the
first foundation stone in the dysfunction of liberal thought. Let’s move on to
the next – evolution. (I speak here not of the usual change we see within
species as they react to the environment; I speak of macro-evolution only.) I’m
not going to address all the scientific evidence that is accumulating against
Darwinism; I haven’t space here. Instead I’d like to look at the dangerous
conclusions one arrives at when one’s starting place is “random mutation” or
“survival of the fittest.” The damage that has been done to our national psyche
via this “theory” is incalculable and yet most of us rumble through our days
oblivious to the devastation, or at least unaware of its genesis.
At the core of Darwin’s Origin of the Species (published in
1859) is the idea that, as a species moves through time, its weaker specimens
die off, leaving only the genetics of the survivors to move into the future. As
the eons pass by each species becomes better and better having sloughed off the
bad genes in favor of the good ones and having experienced along the way
random, enhancing, genetic mutations.
He even posited that all
species started from a single “simple” cell (we know now that there is no such
thing) and through random happy accidents (which, by the way, are almost never
happy) added to the survival impetus, and gradually produced us. (I find it odd
that nature kept pushing toward human existence, given the fact that it could
have stopped with the cockroach. Cockroaches have survival down pat.)
So, what’s wrong with those
ideas? Several important things:
