Alchemy, Marxism, and the future of Darwinism

Discovery Institute ^ | Feb 27, 2007 | Jonothan Wells

[js1138]

Populations are constantly changing. It's just that bacteria can give you hundreds of generations in a reasonable amount of time.

[NicknamedBob]

"Science can prove nothing. The tests you descibe are attempts at falsification."

[RunningWolf]

Usually that is how the news was most likely presented, and as fact also. It was not till you dug into it that you saw it for what it was.

I am saying you find this sort of thing rampant in the 'mountain of evidence'. And thats just the start.

[doc30]

That's the best you can do? Resort to mocking because you don't know jack about science and how it works? Thanks for proving my point. You are scientifically illiterate.

[NicknamedBob]

"That's the best you can do? ... You are scientifically illiterate."

My response, (this one), is a quote from a delightful young lady of elegant demeanor:

"That may be so, but at least I am not rude!"

[wintertime]

Darwinism might, like Marxism, persist for a while ( from the article)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Marxism should not be dismissed so lightly. It is a philosophy that is far more pernicious than something that might "persist for a while."

Sadly, our society is infected with Marxists. They inhabit the Democratic Party, government bureaucracies, and our universities and K-12 schools are thoroughly infiltrated with them.

If the Marxists succeed in winning total control of our government and social institutions, freedom will be doomed for all mankind, worldwide, for a very long time. We would be literally looking at another Dark Ages.

Darwinism is useful to the Marxists because it undermines a young person's belief in God, trust in his parents and family, and community traditions. Darwinism works to destroy society's belief in the philosophy of our Founding Fathers that human rights are an immutable gift from God.

Darwinism as a scientific theory is really very inconsequential to the work of nearly all people except for the very, very small number of scientists actually engaged in the field of evolution. Even other scientists ( including those working in biology and biochemistry) have little reason to use, or even study evolution.

My husband is a biochemist. Except for the one lesson he had in introductory biology, he never again had any reason to return to the subject. He is a highly respected scientist and has lectured world wide, published many papers, and is the holder of 6 pattents in his field. His experience is true for nearly all scientists, except for the very, very small number of those actually doing research in the very narrow field of evolution itself.

So...why do the materialists ( Darwinists and Marxists) push so hard to impose Darwinism on our nation's K-12 and university students? After all, it is a topic that if of **very little** use to nearly everyone.

I suspect Darwinists and Marxists push evolution so hard, not because of its scientific usefulness to the student, but for its political, cultural, and religious consequences for the children. Darwinism pushes the Marxist agenda forward.

[wintertime]

I stated that no science is entirely objective – that is, based only on the facts and free of subjective elements. ( from the article)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The education of youth ( just like science) is **never** entirely objective. It is **never** politically, culturally, or religiously neutral in content or consequences.

Marxism and Darwinism will **never** be religiously, politically, or culturally neutral in content or consequences.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Darwinism is useful to the Marxists because it undermines a young person's belief in God, trust in his parents and family, and community traditions. Darwinism works to destroy society's belief in the philosophy of our Founding Fathers that human rights are an immutable gift from God.

Darwinism is only useful to the Marxists, if it's only being taught by the Marxists. I was raised with God and evolution both being part of the household belief system and have had no problems integrating the two. My children have been raised the same (as was my wife) and there have been no problems as of yet with them. After all, education begins in the home.

As for Darwin destroying the idea of rights, I think the Founding Fathers -- or Jefferson, at least -- may have anticipated this, when the phrase, "endowed by their creator" was used instead of "endowed by the Lord." The idea that those rights exist independently of the details of how humankind was created is a bulwark in preserving those rights against any arguments that God does not exist.