Friday, August 05, 2005

Darwin vs. Science

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.


  1. "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."

    Right on the money. They are absolutely freaking out because something else has come along and said "your fly's undone".

    You know the funny thing is liberals are actually holding back a dam that most people don't know about yet, more so than evolution, etc. Everyone remember that liberal pap about how "Oh the Bible is full of crap because it says the Universe is only 10,000 years old--we know its a lot older than that!" But what no one says is that until the late 1950s--the Bible had the closest answer. A huge majority of scientists refused to believe the Universe had expanded at all, they wanted a Universe that had always existed, called the Steady State Theory. Even Einstein changed his own equations to force this mathematical result. And that's not even getting into the realization of Inflation (basically, that the Universe went from a miniscule size at oh--10^-19 seconds [estimated] to nearly it's present size in just a few miliseconds). Scientists are falling all over themselves talking about Higg's fields, membranes, quantum irregularities...when it really sounds a whole lot closer to "let there be Light" to me.

    And thanks for the link, Exile! I'll add you to the blogroll as well.

  2. The Big Bang Theory, too, is just a theory?

    Why do you suppose that they're not as concerned about ID possibly tearing that theory down, as they are about Darwinism?

  3. There's a great discussion on this topic @

    [No www]

    You might want to have a look.

  4. When my son's friends started to make fun of him because we go to church and believe in God, I asked them why they understood that a computer, a television, a telephone, etc. all had inventors and why they couldn't understand that if these simple things could not appear at random -- how does one justify believing that something as complex as the human being could be the result of some cosmic fluke.
    They don't make fun of him anymore (well, not for that anyway).

  5. Not quite sure, Exile. Perhaps because evolution was a huge victory for them, and now if the truth ever starts to gain steam (not about ID, per se, but more about how full of holes evolution is) they're just so afraid of what they'll lose.

    The Big Bang, aside from a name that people can easily visualize (somewhat erroneously too, because nothing exploded, space actually expanded, or stretched), is really such a realm of awe and bewilderment for most scientists that they really can only explain it as "the laws of physics break down", meaning, they don't know. But they do know that the Big Bang happened. Check out google or wikipedia for the CMB radiation, it is the remnant echo of the Big Bang (basically a bunch of microwaves left over from when protons and electrons started to latch on to one another; turn on your TV without the antenna--see the static?--that's the CMB radiation along with some other local junk, or so I've read) Anyway, it's pretty wild stuff.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. I don't know what I believe anymore, but I respectfully hear all opinions, no matter how ridiculous. I was raised a Christian and fluctuate between being a literal Creationist, an Intelligent Design believer, and curling up in a fetal ball overwhelmed by the sheer impossibility of existence.

    The thing is, folks who preach Darwinism possess a faith greater than I've seen in most Christians. While most Christians I know will admit that they "know" nothing but "believe" something, Darwinists not only BELIEVE Darwinism, they KNOW it's true, and anyone that doesn't is a silly, single-digit IQ Creationist type who should be patted on the head. Silly Christians.

    I recently read a book entitled "Just Six Numbers" by Martin Rees. He clearly believes in the Big Bang and subsequent evolution, but he made a statement which I thought was profound. He says that whatever happened before the Big Bang is not the province of Physicists or Scientists. He can only explain what happened AFTER the building blocks existed; where those building blocks came from is for the clergy and philosophers to decide.

    But, those wacky folks with their Darwin Fish bumper stickers just blindly accept that all this something came from nothing.

    And Christians are supposed to be blind followers!