For people who are so attached to Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”, the Left certainly seems intent on keeping the least fit in the gene pool (i.e. welfare queens, "homeless" bums).
You’d think that they’d embrace Intelligent Design (ID). That way they could just declare themselves the most fit to design everything and call all of their social meddling part of that effort. They could say that ancient Liberals actually designed the human species and the Universe, so we must trust them. They could actually proclaim God as the first "Progressive"! I certainly wouldn’t put it past them.
Don’t expect the Left to embrace it anytime soon though, no matter how beneficial it might be to them. It’s just too complex. It can’t be boiled down to a slogan or anything so simple as “Keep the good, get rid of the bad” like Darwinism can.
Even if the more intelligent among them were able to understand it, the vast majority of their foot-soldiers couldn’t. Or, even if they could, it would be just too much trouble to learn. If they’re too lazy to learn the simple facts behind the Air America scandal, they certainly couldn’t be bothered to try to understand the relatively complex science behind ID. And, like the Air America scandal, they dismiss ID because, a) they don't want to believe it and, b) it's easier to dismiss it than to learn what's really going on.
But the fact is, after almost 150 years of Darwinism, there is still no proof whatsoever that the Theory of Evolution (note the word theory) is anything more than that: a theory. Nobody has seen the slightest evidence that evolution occurs. The whole thing is based on nothing more than a theory and a pronouncement that it is true.
While it may appear that early man evolved from primates, there is absolutely no evidence to prove it. And what about animals that haven’t evolved for millions of years (i.e. sharks, cockroaches); have they attained perfection? Why else would they have dropped out of the ‘natural selection’ process? Maybe they're Liberals who just said, "I've had enough of this genetic competition. I like me just the way I am", and quit evolving.
Whether ID is right or wrong, it is at least based on logic and doesn’t require any great leaps of faith. The chances of natural selection actually occuring even once are so small that you probably have better odds of winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life.
Dembski has formulated what he calls the "universal probability bound." This is a number beyond which, under any circumstances, the probability of an event occurring is so small that we can say it was not the result of chance, but of design. He calculates this number by multiplying the number of elementary particles in the known universe (10^80) by the maximum number of alterations in the quantum states of matter per second (10^45) by the number of seconds between creation and when the universe undergoes heat death or collapses back on itself (10^25). The universal probability bound thus equals 10^150, and represents all of the possible events that can ever occur in the history of the universe. If an event is less likely than 1 in 10^150, therefore, we are quite justified in saying it did not result from chance but from design. Invoking billions of years of evolution to explain improbable occurrences does not help Darwinism if the odds exceed the universal probability bound.
(Unless they have an Improbability Drive. - ed.)
What that last sentence means is that because, as the author notes earlier in the article (it's well worth reading), fewer than 10^18 seconds have elapsed since the beginning of the universe, 10^150 makes it impossible for 'natural selection' to work.
But again, when you start talking about probabilities of 10^150th power (that's 10 with 150 zeroes behind it), it becomes just way too complicated for your average, lazy Lefty. Anything much beyond the Top 20 Video Countdown is pushing their limits. They don't have time to think about stuff like this. They have to get up at noon so they can make the protest on time.
The Left automatically sees ID as an attempt to justify God. Granted, while it could possibly prove that there was a Creator, it's just another way of trying to ascertain, scientifically, how we got here. I couldn't care less about the religious aspects of ID, the subject and its possibilities are fascinating.
The Left likes to ridicule religion because it’s not based on science; but neither is Darwinism. At least with religion, there is some early documentation (i.e. the Bible). Even that can’t be said of ‘natural selection’. There is not a shred of hard evidence that it has ever occurred.
The Left accuses the people studying ID as being religiously motivated, but make no mistake: Darwinism is much more a part of the Left’s religion than ID is for Christians. Liberals are defending Darwinism with all of the fervor of any true believer.
All of the proof that I need of the ID theorists possibly being on to something is the reaction of the Left to this subject. It's always a good sign when they react with condescension and/or shrieks of outrage. We're getting both in this case.
When you add in their absolute refusal to even consider allowing this to be spoken of in classrooms, it means that they realize that their emporer has no clothes and that ours is starting to look pretty well-dressed.
As always, they know that they can't stand up to competition, on this subject or any other.