In the decades since Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution, critics and zealots alike have been looking for any way to discredit it. Recently, Townhall's own Pat Buchanan entered the frey as one who makes the age-old appeal to conspiracy.

Pat Buchanan: Making a Monkey out of Darwin

In this article Buchanan mentions Thomas Huxley, a contemporary of Darwin and is quoted as saying "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."  This kind of appeal tries to discredit something by claiming it was promoted through deceit, ignoring the actual substance of the theory itself. It ignores the actual merits of the theory, in other words, the evidence. Darwin had the evidence. Men like Huxley just tried to market it. But no matter how he pushed it, Huxley had no bearing on the validity of Darwin's theory. It was vindicated by evidence, not good PR. And it has continued to be vindicated in the decades since.

 

When appeals to conspiracy don't work, men like Buchanan will try the old slippery slope argument. He references Marx and Hitler, two of the most despised figures in the 20th century and associates them with Darwin. This 'fraud by association' is another dishonest tactic that has the same problem as the appeal to conspiracy. It does not address the evidence. It is basically an ad hominum attack. It reasons that if A is bad and B is associated with A then B must be bad. It has no bearing on the validity of a theory either. It does not matter who formulated it or what they believed or didn't believe. What matters is the evidence. So whether Darwin was an agnostic, a Christian, or a Muslim, it doesn't matter. The evidence is what matters.

 

In addition, the association between Darwin, Hitler, and Communism is sketchy at best and non-existant at worst. In Hitler's own book, Mien Kamf, he redicules Darwin's work and makes many of the same arguments creationists use today. If he had any favoring of evolution, it wasn't Darwin. It was the evolution proposed of Jean-Baptiste Lemarck, who came before Darwin and proposed a kind of evolution where variation could emerge in a single individual within a single generation. But Lemarck turned out to be wrong. Darwin proved that populations evolve, not individuals. Lemarck appealed to Hitler and Stalin because it justifed the idea of propogating physically, racially, and nationally superior humans. It meant if they could make the citizens of their country into an ideal, they would evolve above the rest of humanity. As Darwin later proved, that is not how evolution works.

 

Regardless of what one thinks about Darwin and who he associated with, his theory has stood the test of time for one reason: evidence. Since his theory was first proposed, mountains of evidence have emerged to support evolution. This evidence includes verifiable observations in palentology, biology, biochemistry, taxonomy, comparative morphology, psychology, and genetics. Some like Buchanan would argue that scientists view it through a bias perspective, but this completely ignores the fact that no viable alternative has been put forth by creationists or intelligent design proponents that better explains what is observed. The evidence fits evolution. It also completely ignores the nature of evidence. Because even from the most bias perspective, evidence cannot be made into something it is not. Evidence stands on its own merits and what is drawn from it cannot be skewed without ignoring reason and logic, which in science always gets trumped by the process of peer review.

 

So for people like Buchanan who resort to these dishonest criticisms, they are hurting their own credibility. If they want to discredit Darwin, do what he did and use evidence rather than blatant personal attacks. Science is not the study of personalities it's the study of the natural world. The merits of an individual scientist do not matter at the end of the day. Only the evidence matters. 

In any modern industrial culture, the value of objectivity often goes unnoticed. In politics, science, religion, philosophy, and economics it is an enormous challenge for anybody to separate themselves from their personal biases and address an issue rationally. Some say it is impossible. There is even evidence to support such an assertion. But objectivity is vital to the existance of a free society and the preservation of justice and knowledge.

Merriam-Webster dictionary has various definitions for objectivity, but the one with the most practical purpose is as follows:

 

"Expression or dealing with facts or conditions as percieved without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations."

Following up on the success of the "Da Vinci Code," a new film adaptation of a popular Dan Brown book "Angels & Demons" was released recently. It follows the further adventures of Robert Langdon, a respected academic who specializes in symbols, as he gets caught up in a battle between the Vatican and the mysterious Illuminati. One side is an age old religious institution and the other is an age old academic institution, symbolizing a percieved conflict between science and religion. It's meant to be a powerful and thrilling story, but it highlights a gross distortion of the truth.

 

It's a story that's nothing new. For decades religious zealots have claimed that an elaborate conspiracy of secular academics is plotting to overthrow religious institutions. For decades conspiracy theorists have claimed that religious institutions are plotting to overthrow secular society, replacing all science and reason with their own narrow dogma. It tells a great story and it's a great rallying cry for ideologues seeking attention. But as with all conspiracy theories, the truth is not so spectacular.

 

It is a fact that the Illuminati were a real organization. But it's nowhere near as powerful as Dan Brown describes in his book. It was originally an academic circle founded by Adam Weishaupt on May 1st 1776 in Baveria. Their purpose seemed ominous. They intended to overthrow the Vatican and the conservative Kingdom of Baveria and replace it with a liberal republic based on the ideas of the Enlightenment. It was secretive and it did have a number of influencial members that even included some ruling princes at the time. But like all secret societies, it didn't last. The organization fell apart in 1790. Other incarnations emerged over the years, but none had any of much coherence beyond a small inner circle of people with little or no influence in world affairs.

 

While the real story is barely a footnote in history, conspiracy theoriests with active imaginations love to tell stories about how secret organizations secretly control every government and are bent on global domination. Religous zealots love it as well because it gives them something to scare people with and gain supporters. Creationists groups like AnswersInGenesis and the Institute for Creation Research will tell a similar story about how science conspires to suppress religion (or truth as they call it) and ignores evidence they claim proves their dogmatic beliefs. Ben Stein made a movie that laid out this idea in "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by trying to show that any questioning of evolution was shunned. But in order to make this point, he has to do things like lie, quote mine, and mislead viewers. Pretty much is entire movie has been debunked and the poor reception by critics and average moviegoers show his message didn't get through.

 

 

From Dan Brown to Ben Stein, conspiracy theories always run into the same problems. They ignore reality. It's appealing for some people to live in a world that's more fanciful than it really is. But this is pure self-delusion, nothing more. The debate between science and religion is not some epic war people make it out to be. It is an ongoing series of disagrements between two things that operate under different principles. Religion deals with the supernatural, superstition, and personal beliefs. Science deals with reason, logic, observation, and experimentation. It's only natural they would conflict with one another because they operate so differently. But just because they are in conflict, that doesn't mean there is some vast, underground war going on between them. Reality still is reality, regardless of what books say. People can expect to be entertained by movies like "Angels and Demons" and "Expelled" but they can't expect to be enlightened.

Recently the Washington Post did a report on David DeWitt, a teacher from Liberty University, a school with a rich tradition of zealous religious teachings that was founded by a zealous religious man named Jerry Fawell. DeWitt teaches 'biology' at this school and took his students on a trip to the Smithsonian Institute, where his faith base psudo-science came head-to-head with real science.

 

 

The purpose of this visit, according to DeWitt, is to strengthen his students' belief in the strict biblical view of history. Translation: he wants to ridicule certain aspects of science deemed 'threatening' by his fellow religious ideologues and replace knowledge with dogma and irrational beliefs. It is a great example of a real paradox. A man parading around as a proponent of science is pushing his irrational beliefs on students in a place that champions ration and debases superstitious dogma. There is no less appropriate place for a committed creationist.

 

"There's nothing balanced here. It's completely, 100 percent evolution-based," said DeWitt.

 

Well of course it is! That's because evolution is science and creationism is nonsenical, incoherent, irrational belief that has been debunked, disproved, and flat out rejected by decades of scientific and academic inquiry. Nobody will ever find in a science museum displays of theories so irrational they claim a magical sky god poofed the entire world into being by magic and gave no trace of his presence and no means of understanding the mechanisms by which it was done. That sort of thing belongs in magic shows, myths, movies, and churches. Just ridiculing something because it doesn't adhere to a certain set of Bronze Age beliefs is not only arrogant, it is unscientific and irrational.

 

DeWitt went onto say ""We come every year, because I don't hold anything back from the students." Well he's doing worse than holding back. He's spitting in the face of science and everyone who has ever worked to further the knowledge of mankind. He's teaching his students to reject reason in favor of irrational belief. He's teaching his students scoff at anything that isn't written in the bible even if it has done more to improve their quality of life than religion could ever hope to match. These young impressionable minds will only have their already bias minds further reinforced with irrational beliefs that not only go against the very foundations of science, but pervert their own religious beliefs.

 

The article went onto describe how other fundementalist groups are planning other trips. They will be guilty of the same irrational nonsense as DeWitt, insulting the concept of knowledge in exchange for dogma. But to the credit of the Smithsonian and other museums of the sort, they do not reject these anti-science zealots. They welcome them with open arms, which is more than Farwell's igornance spewing school can say. Try entering Liberty as a muslim, an hindu, a homosexual, or heaven forbid an atheist. What are the chances they will be anywhere near as welcoming?

 

The article aslo referenced a Pew poll that revealed around 42 percent of Americans believe in DeWitt's Bronze Age mythological nonsense. That shows just how deep ignorance runs in this country. These ongoing practices of insulting the champions of science are NOT helping. Creationism has been shown time and again to be no more scientific than stories surrounding unicorns, fairies, and mermaids. It's failed every major test of scientific scrutiny and propogating it as a valid alternative is insulting to the very idea of reason.

 

People are free to believe whatever they want. But people who try to poison the well of knowledge, stifle human creativity, and push their dogma on others are enemies of a free and rational society.

As an atheist, many assume I am for Obama's recent lift on bans surrounding stem cell research. It seems every major media outlet is cheering the lift proclaiming it a victory for science. But I don't believe that. Because lifting the stem cell research ban is a victory for bureaucrats and politicians, not the scientists and doctors who actually deal with this issue. You can throw out all the religious and moral arguments you want on stem cells, but the issue comes down to one fundemental question. Does the government have a right to use taxpayer money to fund science research on its own accord? On paper it sounds like a good idea, but like so many big government advocates they miss the point.

 

Whenever government money is thrown into anything it fundementally changes how it functions. Unlike the private sector, there's no incentive to be thrifty or pragmatic with the money. Because it's coming from the government as a handout. Why should they care? That means they'll negate focusing on certain aspects of research that would lead to real commercial products like drugs and treatments that people could actually benefit from. Because when it's not their money, why should they care if anything pragmatic comes out of it? The truth is they don't have to.

 

If history has shown us anything it's that capitalism and free markets are the best means for which research and scientific advancement lead to real and practical applications for people. When the government gets involved, reserach loses focus and advances that may have come about through further experiments never come to pass. And the media never reports an experiment that never happens.

 

Real constitutionally sound politicians draw a simple line. Taxpayer money should not go to things which are not laid out in the constitution. The money the government is gushing out at the seems would be much better spent by the private sector. In regards to stem cells, for now it's just a political tool for politicians to use to show that they champion science and technology. They never stop and think that maybe they're doing more harm than good.

On February 12, 1809, Charles Darwin was born and the scientific world would never be the same. 200 years later, his impact cannot be understated not just in his contributions to science, but also in his profound effect on religion, culture, and philosophy. It is ironic as well because Charles Darwin never saw himself as anything more than a man of science. It would be future generations that would take his simple theory and extrapolate so much more from it.

 

For better or worse, Charles Darwin is a figure constantly referenced in the culture wars. His theory flew in the face of many old traditions, most notably that of creationism. Like Pasteur before him along with Newton and Galileo, most people had only age-old stories to explain forces they didn't understand. Darwin's idea was revolutionary in its reasoning. For the first time a mechanism of change within living things was identified and the principle of evolving, adapting, dynamic systems of life made sense. And it did this without evoking supernatural forces. This upset many ardent believers and still does to this day. But some people take it further.

 

Religous coservatives and even radical political groups like the Nazi's condemned evolution. Ironically it was those who despised it that gave it the ideologicial connotations that are frequently used in the culture wars today. Darwin never mentioned anything about philosophy, politics, or morality in his work. Yet there are those who see evolution as a philosophy of sorts that those opposed to traditional spiritual beliefs support. This is completely ignoring the essance of what evolution is and it ignores the very tenants of science, but the conflict persists as evolution is an easy target because it's so vast and explains something so grand that some people can't accept that there were no divine forces involved.

 

This uncertainty and ignorance about evolution is why many don't believe it, particularly in the religous landscape of America. A recent gallap poll revealed that only 39 percent of American's believe in evolution. Many do so on religious grounds without understanding what evolution truly is or what Darwin truly laid out. In most other industrialized countries the vast majority of the population accepts evolution. Even the late Pope John Paul conceded that evolution was a well founded theory that should be taken seriously and shouldn't be rejected on the grounds of faith. In the academic circle, it's even more widely accepted. Over 95 percent of all scientists agree with evolution and it remains the foundation for modern biology.

 

But regardless of how many people believe it, evolution has proven the test of time. Darwin was very bold for his time to make such a hypothesis when there was no knowledge of DNA, cells, or advanced biochemistry. There were even fewer fossils to be referenced yet he predicted that over time science would uncover a fossil record that would illustrate the common descent of species over the ages. And he was correct. Fossils along with many other advances on biology and chemistry have proven Darwin's theory with a wealth of information even he couldn't have dreamed.

 

Evolution has shined light on our understanding of life and while still entrenched in the culture war, has left an undeniable impact on the world. And it all began 200 years ago with the birth of a man with humble beginnings. Charles Darwin's contribution to the world is arguably one of the most important in the annals of science. It continues to draw controversy from those who do not understand it, but it is still a feat worthy of celebration two centuries later. 

Recently, Marvin Olasky posted an article detailing ways to start dialogue between what he called 'darwinists' and believers like himself. The article tried to appear reasonable, but Olasky made no secret of his bias.

 

Re: Dialogue With Darwinists

 

First off, he makes one key mistake. There is no such thing in the scientific world as "Darwinism." It isn't an ideology and it isn't a philosophy. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, a theory. And a theory, which Olasky seems to confuse with blind speculation, is defined in science as a coherent explanation about natural phenomena supported by evidence. Olasky then goes onto list what he considers weaknesses of evolution, which if he did any research whatsoever would have known were illogical and disproven claims made by creationists.

 

First off, he claims there has never been an observed instance of one 'kind' of animal turning into another 'kind.' But he never gives a single explanation for what a 'kind' is. He claims nobody ever saw a dog produce a cat. Well of course! Evolution doesn't allow that. It allows for speciation and common descent from a common ancestor. And speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab many times. Check the link below for peer reviewed evidence of it:

 

 

Then he goes onto claim DNA is like a computer and as such it needs a programmer. But this isn't what DNA is and it's a totally false dichtomy. DNA is NOT like a computer. It is product of chemistry and physics. And moreover, the origin of DNA has NOTHING to do with evolution. That would be Abiogenesis, which does have a body of evidence supporting it, but of course Olasky doesn't make that distinction. No dogmatic, anti-science creationist would. It may cause them to think too much. Moreover, DNA is not necessary to survive. Simple bacteria function just fine without it. They use only RNA. So Orlasky clearly hasn't read a high school science textbook either because anybody with a capacity to check facts would know that.

 

Lastly, Olasky makes the old irreducible complexity argument, championed by Michael Behe, a noted Intelligent Design advocate. He claims DNA and cells are just too complex to have emerged from natural processes. But once again he shows more ignorance when he says mutations can't account for such change because they're often disadventageous. This is completely wrong and any textbook will confirm that. Most mutations are completely nuetral. And it has been estimated that there are well over 100 per zygote after conception. And over time mutations do accumulate in DNA so that when conditions change, the previously neutral mutation may provide a benefit or detriment. Natural selection takes over.

 

Orlasky, like all creationists, is working off the assumption that god created everything as it says in the bible and evolution is by definition flawed because it conflicts with his beliefs. This is completely wrong not to mention self-centered. Just because a theory happens to contradict a certain story about a certain deity and believers don't like it doesn't mean that it has to be false. Evolution is true because evidence supports it. And many different fields cross confirm it including palentology, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, and taxonomy. Creationism and Intelligent design isn't cross confirmed by ANYTHING. It's wild speculation from creationists who are trying ot sound more scientific. But they make the same mistake. They try to inject their spiritual beliefs into science and that violates the very definition of science. Science by its own design can only deal with natural forces. Anything supernatural is the domain of speculation, faith, and psuedo-science.

 

It's also worth noting that people like Orlasky are singling out just one theory. It's easy to forget that biblical dogma also contradicts the heliocentric theory, the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, and it also contradicts germ theory because the bible says in many passages that disease is caused by evil spirits (1st Samuel 16:14-16). So why evolution? Well evolution is easier to doubt because it deals with the past and there's always a touch of uncertainty when dealing with the past. Even when the evidence is blatently clear, that's not enough for believers. Any gap must discredit the entire theory, thus vindicating their cherished beliefs.

 

Orlasky ends his article with very dry references to these 'darwinists' he refers to. He plays the old addage that life is such a miracle and it couldn't possibly have just happened naturally. Well that's not a scientific fact. That's a subjective opinion. Science is not nearly as arrogant as Orlasky puts it. Science is willing to state that it does not have all the answers, but it always investigating. Pepole like Orlasky and other creationists adherents are so arrogant they try to make it sound as though they know what science doesn't and only ask that people suspend their reason and believe Bronze Age folklore on faith. Not only is that completely unscientific, it's an afront to human curiosity. Orlasky like every creationist before him doesn't understand what science is, but is willing to attack it if he sees it as an afront to his beliefs. He is willing to ignore all the good that science does just so he and others like him can be content in their beliefs. It is arrogant and conceit in the highest regard and deserves only the greatest of scorn.

Most people don't understand or appreciate how much science has done for them. Anybody living in the United States or any industrialized country owes their lives to science and all it has brought us. Because of science millions if not billions of lives have been saved thanks to medical advancements that have cured diseases like polio and smallpox and millions more can survive thanks to lower infant morality. Because of science our civilization has an abudnence of food that is unsurpassed compared to any other time in history and because of science our understanding of how nature and the cosmos work has been greatly expanded. Everytime someone is able to eat ample food, drink clean water, or heal with modern medicine they are indebted to the advances made by countless men of science who used their reason and ingenuity to further our knowledge and create new ways to live and survive.

 

And yet despite all science has given civilization, there are those who seek to undermine it with age old superstition and dogma. These people feel so threatened by the advancements science has made they are willing to undo it and all the good it does just so they can keep their age old beliefs. Chief among these anti-science zealots are those calling themselves 'creation scientists.' Yet it would be an insult to real scientists everywhere to call these people scientists because what they do isn't science. It is just another way for them to push their religous beliefs on people and by disguising it as science they try to get a certain level of legitimacy, which is impossible because they completely ignore the tenants of science.

 

These creation scientists actually believe that the stories in the bible are literally true. They believe that the world was created by a supernatural being and that there was a global flood that only one man survived by building a single boat that housed two of every animal. They genuinely believe that the entire world was destroyed by their 'loving god' and they can prove this with science even though all of their claims have been rejected by legitimate research. But this doesn't seem to bother them. They reject vast body of geological and fossil evidence, claiming it can be explained by their faulty reasoning and misconstrued, out of context, and often outrageous biblical interpretations. They openly admit that if any evidence or theory of any kind comes along that my counter what their old book of Judeo-Christian myths and legends says then it must be thrown out.

Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis (or Answers in Magic would be a more accurate description), is a well-known creationists who claims to know the actual 'science' of creation, but his claims and methods are about as steeped in science as the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. His site openly admits in it's mission statement that "We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness." This basically destroyed their scientific credibility because it states they have their conclusion already and will only shape the facts to agree with it. And that is NOT science. That's nonsense.

Science works in the opposite direction. It takes evidence and draws conclusions of it and often new evidence comes along to change that conclusion. People used to believe demons caused disease, but new evidence came along in the form of scientific observation of bacteria and microbes that proved otherwise. But if Ken Ham's method were applied and the idea of demons causing a disease was assumed since the bible says nothing about bacteria and affirms that demons cause disease, that evidence would have to be thrown out because it contradicts his assertion. Imagine if germ theory had been thrown out and science was not able to develop an understanding of disease. Millions if not billions of people would have died from a lack of understanding of how to treat diseases like polio and smallpox. But at least people like Ken Ham would have felt comfortable that their faith was secure. It only cost millions of lives and countless suffering. Is that really worth it?

Another common claim people like Ken Ham and his cohorts Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (which is also an oxymoron because they don't research anything but the bible) and convicted fraudster Kent Hovind (the man who loves to claim dinosaurs and man walked together) like to espouse is that they are looking at the same evidence, they are just interpreting it differently. This is also a bogus argument because their 'interpretation' is steeped in dogma that allows for supernatural forces to play a part in natural processes. And in science there can be no supernatural forces whatsoever, otherwise it is by definition not science. Science does not claim to have all the answers, but when it doesn't know something it admits it doesn't know. It doesn't claim to know saying their version of a supernatural entity is behind it all. It actually seeks to investigate the phenomenon and explain it through natural forces.

This is possibly the biggest crime creationists and other anti-science zealots commit. They stiffle human curiosity into looking into a phenomonon. Someone out there may have had the answers to these questions about the universe a long time ago, but because of zealots and dogmas they were afraid or unable to pursue their curiosity and their knowledge was lost. Dogma such as creationism and anything like it teaches people to be content with not knowing something and attibuting it to supernatural forces they can never grasp. It hinders creativity and the human mind itself. These dogmatic zealots are not scientists, they are tyrants of the human spirit.

And their reverence of scripture and age old text (not just the bible but books like the Quran and the Book of Mormon), tries to parade nonsense as science even when it has been thoroughly disproven. There are still people who believe in the geocentric model of the solar system, that is having the Earth at the center of the universe, because that's what the bible implies. And their arguments are even laid out int the following website:

Geocentric Earth Nonsense

Creationists fight so hard to get their views forced into schools in regards to evolution. Yet you don't see many trying to push the Geocentric aspect of their dogma on anybody yet. As Penn Jillette so eloquently put "I'm sure they're just thinking...one step at a time."

This is the ultimate irony. The beliefs and nonsense these creation science and anti-science zealots try to push on the public is known by many to be wrong and good science has debunked it time and again. So they actively seek the government to support them through use of force either through policy or monetary support. They know they can't win in the ligitmate arena so they have to use force and that shows just how flawed their principles are.

I take this time to rant against these anti-science dogmatic zealots parading around as real scientists because they really do undermine the foundations of modern civilizaton. They would have it that we reject that which has given us so much just so they could feel good and secure about their beliefs. They would gladly march us all back into the Dark Ages where medicine involved prayer and exorcism and anybody doing research that contradicted sacred scripture was imprisoned or put to death and where irrational superstition took precedence over reason. And they do it with a smile, not caring of how many people would suffer and die as a result. If there isn't a greater example of ture evil then I've never heard one. If they have such a big problem with science then they should move out of our modernized world and live in hut in the middle of nowhere farming with pick axes and hand tools, just as it was in the days of their sacred tales. Because if science is so bad and so anti-god, then they should practice what they preach.

This is a free society. People have a right to believe whatever they want to believe. But in the world of reason, if you're going to make a claim you must support it with evidence. And faith is not evidence. Faith is faith. Don't confuse the two. Otherwise you'll damage both and all of society, not just science and religion, will be undermined.