Skip to comments.Making a Monkey Out of Darwin
Posted on 06/30/2009 4:44:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
"You have no notion of the intrigue that goes on in this blessed world of science," wrote Thomas Huxley. "Science is, I fear, no purer than any other region of human activity; though it should be."
As "Darwin's bulldog," Huxley would himself engage in intrigue, deceit and intellectual property theft to make his master's theory gospel truth in Great Britain.
He is quoted above for two reasons.
First is House passage of a "cap-and-trade" climate-change bill.
Depending on which scientists you believe, the dire consequences of global warming are inconvenient truths -- or a fearmongering scheme to siphon off the wealth of individuals and empower bureaucrats.
The second is publication of "The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold," by Eugene G. Windchy, a splendid little book that begins with Huxley's lament.
That Darwinism has proven "disastrous theory" is indisputable.
"Karl Marx loved Darwinism," writes Windchy. "To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution."
"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.
Darwin suited Adolf Hitler's purposes, too.
"Although born to a Catholic family Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs' advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire."
Charles Darwin also suited the purpose of the eugenicists and Herbert Spencer, who preached a survival-of-the-fittest social Darwinism to robber baron industrialists exploiting 19th-century immigrants.
Historian Jacques Barzun believes Darwinism brought on World War I: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens -- all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate."
Yet a theory can produce evil -- and still be true.
And here Windchy does his best demolition work.
Darwin, he demonstrates, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a "completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection."
"All my originality ... will be smashed," wailed Darwin when he got Wallace's manuscript.
Darwin also lied in "The Origin of Species" about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.
Darwin's examples of natural selection -- such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which it fed to survive -- have been debunked. Giraffes eat grass and bushes. And if, as Darwin claimed, inches meant life or death, how did female giraffes, two or three feet shorter, survive?
Windchy goes on to relate such scientific hoaxes as "Nebraska Man" -- an anthropoid ape ancestor to man, whose tooth turned out to belong to a wild pig -- and Piltdown Man, the missing link between monkey and man.
Discovered in England in 1912, Piltdown Man was a sensation until exposed by a 1950s investigator as the skull of a Medieval Englishman attached to the jaw of an Asian ape whose teeth had been filed down to look human and whose bones had been stained to look old.
Yet three English scientists were knighted for Piltdown Man.
Other myths are demolished. Bird feathers do not come from the scales of reptiles. There are no gills in human embryos.
For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists," admitted Stephen J. Gould in 1977. But that fossil record now contains even more species that appear fully developed, with no traceable ancestors.
Darwin ruled out such "miracles."
And Darwinists still have not explained the origin of life, nor have they been able to produce life from non-life.
The most delicious chapter is Windchy's exposure of the Scopes Monkey Trial and Hollywood's Bible-mocking movie "Inherit the Wind," starring Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow.
The trial was a hoked-up scam to garner publicity for Dayton, Tenn. Scopes never taught evolution and never took the stand. His students were tutored to commit perjury. And William Jennings Bryan held his own against the atheist Darrow in the transcript of the trial.
In 1981, Gould had this advice for beleaguered Darwinists:
"Perhaps we should all lie low and rally round the flag of strict Darwinism ... a kind of old-time religion on our part."
Exactly. Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was.
evolutionism, a religion, who would have thunk it...???
I guess it's only fair to reverse the debate. The general point of contention so far has been the issue of making Darwin out of a monkey.
The best from Pat I’ve read in a long while.
I think he's not being careful in his reviews of the pieces his hired writers do for him.
Guy's getting old or something.
The strong survive, the weak don’t.
Cept for times when the socialist dems are in charge.
Pat Buchanan, an anti-science cult priest, who would have thunk it...?
I think Pat is worried that Christians might have evolved from the Jews.
If Scopes never taught evolution, why was he charged with it? Moreover, if he had, would the outcome of the trial have been any different?
Thanks for marginalizing us, Pat. We really appreciate it.
Nifong prosecution by Socalist Democrat Bryan
If evolution is such settled science, why is it still called a theory?
As opposed to what?
I don't think he even had to specifically teach evolution to be in violation of the Butler Act. It forbid teaching anything other than the literal account of creation according to Genesis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.