Ode to a hero

Back in February the Smithsonian magazine ran a cover story on Darwin and Lincoln, “Their Genius, Their Legacies, Their Humanity”. The article on Darwin couldn't be more typical in it's purpose. Fool the common man once again, make your followers feel good that they believe, speak the party line, avoid real truth. Beginning with the title, What Darwin Didn't Know, you get this sense of fair play and open mindedness. See these scientists are questioning Darwin, they are in fact, revealing flaws and in the pursuit of truth they are making themselves vulnerable. How noble. And yet no such thing happens in this article. The title is in fact a hurrah for how amazing Darwin's ideas were with so little data. The entire piece is a praise for the man's impeccable character, his tireless scientific inquiry and the blinding brilliance of his evolutionary theories. Yet the claims Charles Darwin himself made in terms of macro-evolution (stay tuned for clarity on that) were not scientifically provable when he made them nor are they now. The author states with amazement that Darwin spent 20 years amassing his data, whereas I find it even more incredible that the ideas continue to be defended and propagated for even longer. Something like holding to the faulty teachings of Greek physician Galen for 1500 years. Which, as an aside, actually gives me hope for mankind today; we eventually got it right.

More than 7 pages are dedicated to extolling Darwin as the greatest man who ever lived. His new and revolutionary ideas astonishing, his book On the Origin of the Species, “majestic” and an “engaging work of literature” (I'm not making this up). Immediately we are swept up in the arms of confident propaganda, “...even the most unanticipated discoveries in the life sciences have supported or extended Darwin's central ideas – all life is related, species change over time in response to natural selection, and new forms replace those that came before.” Quoting pioneering geneticist Thoedosius Dobzhandsky, “ Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in Light of Evolution”, the article continues, “He could not have been more right – evolution is quite simply the way biology works, the central organizing principle of life on earth” No bias there! Just pure science! This paragraph alone utilizes a few brilliant avenues of propaganda (roads well traveled by proponents of naturalism), first blending something true with something false, mixing facts with assumptions and then completely ignoring valid contradictory arguments. These techniques are so commonly used in publications today we forget how effective they are. This article typically blends microevolution with macroevolution, assuming the reader will not detect the staggering difference. These two concepts are constantly, intentionally confused and interchanged by naturalists. Microevolution is introduced first, stated as observable changes within a species, the ability for living things to adapt to their environment, and variety within a species, what the bible clearly calls “kinds”, the famous finch beaks. No one argues with this. But then there is the brilliant blending in of macroevolution, the non-observable, non-reproducible idea that one species can change into another. It's very subtle and very effective. You're led to believe that they are one in the same. Couple that with absolutely no contradictory scientific voices and the public is properly intimidated. The fact that reputable scientist's in a variety of fields have and do question the validity of macroevolution and other ideas in Neo-Darwinism is completely ignored. And having no dissenting voice gives the author free reign to make all the typical statements about fossils and dating and such and such discoveries that have “proven” Darwin right.

The article gives a famous quote of Darwin's from The Origin of the Species, “I look with confidence to the future,to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.” Expect they don't. The “both sides” Darwin spoke of have all but vanished. Neo-Darwin thinking is singularly taught in every government school in the United States. No one is allowed to question the theory unless they are willing to cower under ridicule and taunting or face million dollar law suits and career black listings. Ah for Darwin's dream of impartiality.

Along with no opposing view points the article uses the common technique of quoting from it's scientific proponents who emphatically state Darwin's theories as fact. Nothing new here. This is the way propaganda works. Tell the people what you want them to believe over and over again. Reduce the opposition by whatever means necessary, ignore it, mock it, outshout it. Limit it's voice. There is nothing but praise for Darwin and his ideas in this article. It's as though the messiah has been found.

The most frightening thing about this and other articles with the same agenda is the blatant lies. The outrageous claim that “the term 'missing link' has for the most part become as outdated as the idea of special creation for each species.” Hate to break the news but nothing of the sort has occurred except in the minds of these evolutionary proponent who outright ignore opposing views. Discoveries interpreted from a non creationist world view must fit the evolutionary mold, there is no alternative but a Creator, and so like the ugly step sisters, they force the shoe to fit. The article ends with a lovely amen to the genius of how astonishingly accurate Darwin was (according to their bias) with what little he knew. No worries or cares, all is right with the world. Since there is no God we can take down our crosses and hang our Darwin fish instead. And we'll not need our silly, outdated bibles any more with our creative “scientific” world forever evolving it's own stories of how the world began. There's only one thing the article forgot that Darwin didn't know - his Creator.