|June 30, 2011||Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design|
Marvin Olasky at Townhall.com has written an essay with this title.
Here are a few excerpts:
Woodrow Wilson started federal government expansion in 1912 by opposing the “Newtonian” view that the government should have an unchanging constitutional foundation, somewhat like “the law of gravitation.” He argued that government should be “accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. . . . Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.”
Evolutionary thinking influenced not only Social Darwinists but socialists like H.G. Wells who thought it was time to advance beyond competitive enterprise. (Karl Marx in Das Kapital called Darwin’s theory “epoch making” and told Friedrich Engels that On the Origin of Species “contains the basis in natural history for our view.”)
I debated Princeton’s Peter Singer in 2004 and had several conversations with him about his defense of infanticide. That year he said, “All we are doing is catching up with Darwin. He showed in the 19th century that we are simply animals. Humans had imagined we were a separate part of Creation, that there was some magical line between Us and Them. Darwin’s theory undermined the foundations of that entire Western way of thinking about the place of our species in the universe.”
We could run through many more areas. Daniel Dennett in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea hit it right: Darwin created a “universal acid” that eats through any “meaning coming from on high.”
Interestingly, Olasky is a former atheist and Marxist.
I can already hear the challenges from the secular left and Darwinists: “Gil, you’re a born-again evangelical Christian, you can’t possibly be objective in this debate.”
I have one retort: I’ve been on both sides and have experienced the real-life effects of both worldviews. One is constructive and the other is destructive, of almost everything that ultimately matters.
The worst part is that Darwinism epitomizes junk pseudo-science, presented as genuine scientific investigation, and has to a great extent succeeded in destroying the legitimacy of the scientific enterprise.
How ironic: In the name of defending “science,” Darwinists have made transparently absurd and indefensible claims, and have therefore done much damage to the integrity of science.