Socio-Political Monkey Business Part 2: Darwin's Domino Effect
Scientific Darwinism maintains that, without master design, a single cell is responsible for all of life – this, through a process of random changes over some 4.5 billion years. My intent is not so much to challenge this theory, but rather to dispute its claim to exclusive, uncontestable king-of- the-mountain status.
You know, as do I, that to question evolution “as fact, not theory” is to wallop the wasp's nest. At increased risk to potentially lethal stings are the purported weak predestined to obsolescence. Presumed-to-be highly evolved elitists within the ranks of academics (both in the scientific community and atop the totem pole of higher learning) afford no room whatsoever for challenge. After all, favored races in the struggle for life naturally know what's best. For them (and them alone), experiential open-mindedness is unnecessary.
Heads AND Tails? No Can Do
Academic elitists champion what David Horowitz calls institutional leftism (political correctness). Laden with laughable absurdities and ludicrous inconsistencies, politically correct thought serves as umbrella under which many postmodern “-isms” huddle. United causes include civil/ gender/ sexual orientation rights and radical environmentalism.
Problem is, Darwinism and institutional leftism are mutually exclusive. In Darwinian thought, for example, homosexuals fall short of the fittest, favored class because they don't procreate to ensure survival of “their kind.” Repeat that out loud, and you're certain to be branded a homophobe. Darwin's belief system is by no means politically correct.
Ayn Rand accurately identified the racist as a person who, based upon racial origin, ascribes collective qualities to others – precisely what evolutionary-minded Margaret Sanger did upon founding Planned Parenthood. Sanger referred to blacks, immigrants, and indigents as “human weeds” and “reckless breeders”; and she went so far as to advocate extermination of the “feebleminded.” Today, Sanger's lauded as a veritable goddess of sustainability. Parrot her and see where that gets you!
Darwin likewise embraced the misogynist notion that women are “less evolved” than men. For doling out dated Darwinian dogma favoring the more highly evolved, superior male gender, you'll likely be tarred and feathered!
My point being, if scientific evolution were indeed settled science, then its promoters could not possibly espouse mutually exclusive precepts of political correctness. Simply put, one cannot win a coin toss by calling both “heads and tails.” But some attempt to do just that by clinging to Darwinism (heads) while, to the contrary, enforcing the conceptual straight jacket of political correctness (tails).
Tolerance vs. “Merciless Hate”
Darwinists applaud man's maturing vision (i.e., Marxism) toward superior, balanced communities. Their utopian ideal specifically excludes “useless eaters,” “miserable, degraded savages,” and those deemed “unfit and defective.” Accordingly, evolutionary theory has been characterized as an expression of “merciless hate.” Tolerant it isn't.
Case in point: British economist Thomas Malthus influenced Darwin's random, unplanned breeding theory. However, Malthusian speculation on dangers of population growth (which since has been soundly discredited) intended to eliminate people. To that end, the “well bred” feel commissioned to target, control, and (when necessary) eradicate “unfit” masses and thereby move the evolutionary process forward.
In Darwin's world, the weakest links somehow deserve to be expunged as “maladjusted morons and misfits.” This flawed line of elitist thinking is precisely what spawned slavery, segregation, racist immigration laws (to turn away post-war Jewish refugees), the infamous Tuskegee Project, and application of the “one-drop rule” to ensure racial purity/ hygiene.
The Beat Goes On
Make no mistake. Elitism, racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and the Culture of Death all are rooted and grounded in Darwinism; even more, the evolutionary theory with all its trappings continues to ransack Western culture. Neo-Nazism, the Aryan Nation, and other eugenic, neo-Nazi groups all take their cues from Darwin. Whether by abortion, infanticide, forced sterilization, euthanasia, “comfort care,” or assisted suicide, “useless eaters” are targeted for extinction; and “the unfit” remain subject to human experimentalism and pharmacological abuse.
Because humans are perceived as mere products of time and chance, it stands to reason that life is devoid of elevated meaning. Rather, Darwinian theory resurrects the non-transcendent, religious expression of social enlightenment and defers to the overriding principle that “ends justify means.”
Marketed to appeal to man's best intentions (the common good, survival, advanced societies), evolutionary thought instead perpetuates a host of societal ills – e.g., unrestricted freedom in commerce, called social Darwinism. Recall that, when the housing bubble burst, only the “favored fittest” were bailed out.
Accepting as settled science that “the strong” naturally crowd out and kill “the weak” arguably opens the door to anarchy, terrorism, back-to-nature extremism, and perpetual war. When a privileged few (the strong) held sway over emasculated underlings (the weak) in Nazi Germany and Russia, respectively, the Holocaust and communist genocides ensued.
Okay, let's see if I've got this straight. Without challenge, I'm to accept as settled science no other hypotheses than those of a college dropout who borrowed elements of his theory (about which he expressed doubts) from a pseudo-scientist's poem. Fortuitously, Darwin's theory validated his “good old boys” network of British elitists; and, arguably, it spawned socio-political atrocities of monumental proportion. Yet, I'm expected to reject Bible belief and personal relationship with my Creator for non-transcendent, seventeenth-century social enlightenment principles with which Darwin identified. Call me ignorant, but I'm not buying it.