Question for Barry: Why do people embrace Darwin today, when his cause is actually collapsing in science?
|March 9, 2012||Posted by O'Leary under Darwinism, Culture, Media|
Who in their right mind would be a Darwinist in science today – if they had a free choice – in the face of lateral gene transfer and epigenetics?
In “First Things: From Part of the Solution to Part of the Problem,” Barry Arrington tells a familiar story: How media – First Things is his example – start out opposing destructive cultural trends, and end up capitulating to them. How else can one explain the suggestion that Darwinism is compatible with Christianity, fronted today in First Things?
Not only isn’t Darwinism compatible with traditional Christianity but no one who really understood it ever supposed that it was. As I have often pointed out here, the Catholic journalists of a century ago understood that implicitly.
Can an addled reverend be a Darwinist? Sure. Just as many such reverends busied themselves with Darwinist eugenics a century ago, their successors may busy themselves with Evolution Sunday today. Both cases are an accurate measure of the distance between their churches and sound Christian teaching. But freedom of religion is fundamental, so by all means let them worship as they please. (Here is a convenient guide to Darwin hagiography, for his faithful.
Why do people embrace Darwin today, when his cause is actually collapsing in science? Who in their right mind would be a Darwinist in science today – if they had a free choice – in the face of lateral gene transfer and epigenetics?
But when 80 percent of the intellectual world believes a lie – “man is just an accidental chimp” – the holdouts get lonely.
They start to accommodate. To agree. One must be nice to one’s oppressors. Mustn’t one? MUSTN’T one?
Wouldn’t all hell break loose if we started to shout what we really know?
And wouldn’t that be awful.
But awful … for whom?
Follow UD News at Twitter!