Darwin's Pyrrhic victory

WorldNetDaily ^ | December 28, 2005 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[streetpreacher]

Darwin's Pyrrhic victory
 

---

Posted: December 28, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

 

By Patrick J. Buchanan
 

---

© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.

 

"Intelligent Design Derailed," exulted the headline.

"By now, the Christian conservatives who once dominated the school board in Dover, Pa., ought to rue their recklessness in forcing biology classes to hear about 'intelligent design' as an alternative to the theory of evolution," declared the New York Times, which added its own caning to the Christians who dared challenge the revealed truths of Darwinian scripture.

Noting that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is a Bush appointee, the Washington Post called his decision "a scathing opinion that criticized local school board members for lying under oath and for their 'breathtaking inanity' in trying to inject religion into science classes."

But is it really game, set, match, Darwin?

Have these fellows forgotten that John Scopes, the teacher in that 1925 "Monkey Trial," lost in court, and was convicted of violating Tennessee law against the teaching of evolution and fined $100? Yet Darwin went on to conquer public education, and American Civil Liberties Union atheists went on to purge Christianity and the Bible from our public schools.

The Dover defeat notwithstanding, the pendulum is clearly swinging back. Darwinism is on the defensive. For, as Tom Bethell, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science," reminds us, there is no better way to make kids curious about "intelligent design" than to have some Neanderthal forbid its being mentioned in biology class.

In ideological politics, winning by losing is textbook stuff. The Goldwater defeat of 1964, which a triumphant left said would bury the right forever, turned out to be liberalism's last hurrah. Like Marxism and Freudianism, Darwinism appears destined for the graveyard of discredited ideas, no matter the breathtaking inanity of the trial judge. In his opinion, Judge Jones the Third declared:

 

The overwhelming evidence is that [intelligent design] is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory ... It is an extension of the fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution.

 

But if intelligent design is creationism or fundamentalism in drag, how does Judge Jones explain how that greatest of ancient thinkers, Aristotle, who died 300 years before Christ, concluded that the physical universe points directly to an unmoved First Mover?

As Aristotle wrote in his "Physics": "Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. But this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some First Mover."

A man of science and reason, Aristotle used his observations of the physical universe to reach conclusions about how it came about. Where is the evidence he channeled the Torah and creation story of Genesis before positing his theory about a prime mover?

Darwinism is in trouble today for the reason creationism was in trouble 80 years ago. It makes claims that are beyond the capacity of science to prove.

Darwinism claims, for example, that matter evolved from non-matter – i.e., something from nothing – that life evolved from non-life; that, through natural selection, rudimentary forms evolved into more complex forms; and that men are descended from animals or apes.

Now, all of this is unproven theory. And as the Darwinists have never been able to create matter out of non-matter or life out of non-life, or extract from the fossil record the "missing links" between species, what they are asking is that we accept it all on faith. And the response they are getting in the classroom and public forum is: "Prove it," and, "Where is your evidence?"

And while Darwinism suggests our physical universe and its operations happened by chance and accident, intelligent design seems to comport more with what men can observe and reason to.

If, for example, we are all atop the Grand Canyon being told by a tour guide that nature, in the form of a surging river over eons of time, carved out the canyon, we might all nod in agreement. But if we ask how "Kilroy was here!" got painted on the opposite wall of the canyon, and the tour guide says the river did it, we would all howl.

A retreating glacier may have created the mountain, but the glacier didn't build the cabin on top of it. Reason tells us the cabin came about through intelligent design.

Darwinism is headed for the compost pile of discarded ideas because it cannot back up its claims. It must be taken on faith. It contains dogmas men may believe, but cannot stand the burden of proof, the acid of attack or the demands of science.

Where science says, "No miracles allowed," Darwinism asks us to believe in miracles.

 

 

---

[Just mythoughts]

LOL

Yes I have seen their pattern, they are just so much more intelligent than the rest, that special fittest that survive, and allow the rest of humanity to cling on because of their wondrous technological accomplishments.

Some days it is almost like these masters of deception are literally expecting the rest of us mere mortals to bow and pay a sacrifice to their highest forms of intellect.

[inquest]

You'll find it in the glossary of Science Made Stupid. (yes, that's a real book)

[B-Chan]

Prove that "God" exists in anything other than your imagination.

I'll go you one better: Prove that anything whatsoever exists in anything other than your imagination.

"[T]here may be some other faculty [of my mind] not yet fully known to me, which produces these ideas without any assistance from external things; this is, after all, just how I have always thought ideas are produced in me when I am dreaming... it is not reliable judgement but merely some blind impulse that has made me believe up till now that there exist things distinct from myself which transmit to me ideas or images of themselves through the sense organs or in some other way...

"[E]very sensory experience I have ever thought I was having while awake I can also think of myself as sometimes having while asleep; and since I do not believe that what I seem to perceive in sleep comes from things located outside me, I did not see why I should be any more inclined to believe this of what I think I perceive while awake. (Descartes, Meditations, 3 [7:39-40], 6 [7:77])

To sum up: you can't "prove" that anything exists except yourself.

With all due respect, Clemenza -- are you bad enough to take your materialist skepticism all the way as René Descartes did? Are you ready to doubt everything that cannot be "proven" to exist? Hee hee. Go ahead. I dare you. But if you do, "Be careful. You may not like what you find" ("Dr. Zaius", Planet of the Apes [Rod Serling, 1968]).

Je pense, donc je suis. It's not just a good idea -- it's the law.

[Fester Chugabrew]

A textbook example of circular reasoning!

Not exactly. It is an example of starting out with an assumption. Also, inductive and deductive reasoning tend to be that way.

[Coyoteman]

You'll find it in the glossary of Science Made Stupid. (yes, that's a real book)

Thanks. Don't have that one.

[forsnax5]

I don't have any friends.

I wasn't picking on you, Fester. Mr. Buchanan (thanks for correcting my typo in the quote, btw) has provided the direction for this thread, and your statement puts you in the more rational camp.

The controversy is best reserved for the later years of education when the evaluative faculties of the student are developed to the extent they can express the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

I agree.

:)

[Zeroisanumber]

But if intelligent design is creationism or fundamentalism in drag, how does Judge Jones explain how that greatest of ancient thinkers, Aristotle, who died 300 years before Christ, concluded that the physical universe points directly to an unmoved First Mover?

Yeah, go Pat! And if ID is creationism in drag, how does Judge Jones explain how one of the greatest 20th century thinkers, Gandhi, preferred to eat vegetables instead of BLTs?

EXPLAIN THAT, DARWINIST SWINE!

[VadeRetro]

If Ghandi had drunk red wine, he'd have appreciated a good steak. I suspect he started down the wrong path early and never had a chance to see the light.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Je pense, donc je suis.

"...the word 'I' is grammatically convenient, but does not describe a datum."

- Bertrand Russell

[Oztrich Boy]

there is no better way to make kids curious about "intelligent design" than to have some Neanderthal forbid its being mentioned in biology class.
Exactly. Same holds true of a lot of other things as well.

Trigonometry, Calculus. The Buchmiester may have discovered a whole new educational strategy here.

[GOPPachyderm]

Interestingly enough, the schools don't seem to have the same antagonism toward other religions, even the so-called religion of peace. Just Christianity.

God reveals Himself in creation, fulfilled prophecy in scripture, the life and resurrection of his Son, and changed lives of believers. Early apostles and believers died for what they knew to be true, including James, Jesus' brother, James.

[Right Wing Professor]

Darwinism claims, for example, that matter evolved from non-matter – i.e., something from nothing – that life evolved from non-life;

I see Buchanan is about as moronic here as he always is.

[Rock N Jones]

"Darwinism appears destined for the graveyard of discredited ideas"

Yes, it is evolving!

[SuzyQue]

It is only Pyrrhic because creationists have defined "Darwinism" to mean new age humanism/atheism, and by doing so, have decided to misunderstand or misrepresent science along with it. This allows them, for reasons that are baffling to me, to tar everyone who believes in scientific procedure as it applies to diversity of life forms, as godless heathens and anti-Christian.

Of course, humanists and atheists may use the science of evolution to their advantage, but heck, they will use any tool at their disposal. It just doesn't follow that to see that the tool exists is to be anti-christian.

I guess I just don't get it.

[Oztrich Boy]

"Animals or apes" although he could use an editor

Pat Buchanan: the conservative's Barbra Streisand

[Senator Bedfellow]

Look at it this way - having mined the supply of economic illiterates for his supply of cheerleaders, Patty Buke is turning his rhetorical pickaxe on a fresh new vein of illiteracy.

[inquest]

The Buchmiester may have discovered a whole new educational strategy here.

Maybe. Either way, I'm sure you think you've discovered a whole new debating strategy.

[B-Chan]

That's Russell's opinion, not a scientifically demonstrable fact.

"One effort at reply has it that introspection reveals more than what Russell allows—it reveals the subjective character of experience. On this view, there is more to the phenomenal story of being in pain than is expressed by saying that there is pain: in the former case, there is pain plus a point-of-view—a phenomenal surplus that's difficult to characterize except by adding that “I” am in pain, that the pain is mine. Importantly, my awareness of this subjective feature of experience does not depend on an awareness of the metaphysical nature of a thinking subject. If we take Descartes to be using ‘I’ to signify this subjective character, then he is not smuggling in something that's not already there: the “I”-ness of consciousness turns out to be (contra Russell) a primary datum of experience." [Source]

Saying "thoughts exist" makes no sense without an "I" to apprehend their existence. No "I", no thoughts. Sorry, Bertie!

[grey_whiskers]

I always wanted to see in the index of a textbook:

Circular reasoning. See "Reasoning, Circular"

Reasoning, Circular. See "Circular reasoning"

Again, try Amazon.com for the humor book Science Made Stupid (author was Tom Weller, IIRC).

[grey_whiskers]

Je pense, donc je suis.

Better still:

I stopped thinking ther--......