So a local colum­nist in the daily paper, Jim Hinckley, decided to show his ignorance.

To ques­tion openly the the­ory of evo­lu­tion in this, a mod­ern, enlight­ened soci­ety freed from the super­sti­tions of reli­gion, is lit­tle more than a pub­lic procla­ma­tion of ignorance.

After all, evo­lu­tion is an estab­lished sci­en­tific fact. On the other hand, is it?

Yes. Yes, Jim, you pub­lic embar­rass­ment. Evolution is an estab­lished sci­en­tific fact.

One of the pri­mary prob­lems with evo­lu­tion­ary the­ory is its very foundation.

How did non­liv­ing chem­i­cals become life?

If this were pos­si­ble, how did a “sim­ple” life form develop into some­thing more complex?

Here Jim just dis­plays his igno­rance of, oh I don’t know, per­haps the last 40 years of research, or what “deep time” means. Now I know Jim, or at least I know who he is. He’s old enough to know bet­ter than to be silly in this way. But he gets sillier.

Evaluation of what con­sti­tutes a “sim­ple” life form even from a naïve, unsci­en­tific stand­point illu­mi­nates the need for an incred­i­ble amount of faith to accept evo­lu­tion as estab­lished fact.

Which is bizarre, since his entire arti­cle is a clear essay on naïveté and unsci­en­tific prin­ci­ples, and espe­cially the need for blind, unthink­ing faith.

Certainly it’s true that we know, for instance, a lot more about the planet Saturn than we do about how pro­teins col­lide and curl. But does our igno­rance require us to pro­pose a God of the Gaps to explain it all? Hardly. It’s just as ratio­nal to sug­gest that Santa mag­icked it all from his bag of toys.

If evo­lu­tion­ary the­ory has tran­scended the realm of sci­ence, could it be deemed a reli­gion if, at its foun­da­tion, was faith, and if those who ques­tioned this faith, were branded as heretics?


No, Jim.

Because faith requires absolute dog­matic adher­ence to received truth.

Science quests, re-​​evaluates, seeks, and refor­mu­lates con­stantly under pres­sure of observed real­ity and tested results.

There is no reli­gion which can stand under sci­ence. Religion is not sci­ence. Hence, obvi­ously, sci­ence is not religion.

Evolutionary fact has indeed tran­scended the realm of sci­ence, just as 2 + 2 = 4 has tran­scended the idea of prayer. This is because some facts, such as the laws of physics, aren’t the­o­ries in any but the most tech­ni­cal of ways; they are fun­da­men­tal bedrocks of nature and real­ity. Saying evo­lu­tion is “just a the­ory” is tan­ta­mount to sug­gest­ing that the spheric­ity of Earth is a nice but impos­si­ble idea.

Ah, and then Jim’s bull­shit­tery begins to spread thick. Watch as he lays the clas­sic, inane schoolboy’s argu­ment about the nature of god and faith.

However, no debate on the sub­ject would be com­plete with­out con­tem­pla­tion of what the results would be in a soci­ety that blindly accepts evo­lu­tion­ary the­ory and fol­lows it to its log­i­cal conclusion.

We would have a soci­ety where some men are more equal than oth­ers, where we would be doing a ser­vice to that soci­ety by elim­i­nat­ing the infe­rior, and the flawed.

We would have a soci­ety where there would be legal and moral jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for this elimination.

We would have a soci­ety where the crim­i­nal could claim to be the victim.

Right. Evolution, the fact, does away with evolved social laws, accord­ing to Jim. The clas­sic stu­pid­ity ren­dered by a man who, appar­ently, would be a Nazi or rapist or thief, if he were not cowed into place by his dom­i­neer­ing god.

Well played, Jim. But sadly, utterly and totally wrong.



No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.