Evolutionists have dubbed 2009 the Year of Darwin, to commemorate both the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of his book, The Origin of the Species. As one might well have guessed at the outset, Darwinists were very encouraged by this supernatural alignment of the heavens and have gone out of their way to praise Darwin and to push their evolution agenda more boldly and more zealously [and one can’t help but think, more desperately]. This past year the public has been absolutely soaked by their evolution-praising saturation of the airwaves, major media, the Internet and even our pulpits. They have filled the world with their cry:
“There is no science but naturalism and Darwin is its Prophet!”
And now the year is over. And so is the party. As we take a moment to reflect upon what they accomplished or hoped to accomplish by this hue and noise, something occurs to us:
They still got nothing more than they had back in December 2008.
They turned up the volume for a bit there, but it was the same old song we’ve been hearing. Honestly, I’ve never been impressed the guys who think they can win an argument by shoutng the other fellow down. They haven’t won the argument. They’ve stopped the argument; but not won it. Nobody can hear any other side of the debate but theirs; but that says nothing to the point of whether their side of the argument was right or not.
I’ll speak plainly: The origins argument cannot be won by dint of volume alone. People won’t put up with it for long before they start to suspect that the reason you don’t want anyone to even listen to the other guy’s side is because you can’t answer it. Neither is truth – even science – a popularity contest. It’s not up for a vote. It never has been. It doesn’t matter at all whether or not the latest consensus of science affirms evolution. We laugh at the past consensus of science as a consensus of nonsense. Geocentrism. Phlogiston. Humors. Bleeding a patient. Lamarckism. And I firmly believe that once the High Wall of Protection that Big Science has placed around the theory of evolution is torn down, Darwinism will be at long last added to that long list of consensus nonsense.
In a way, it already has been. But we’ll get to that in Part 2 of this series.
These guys aren’t even willing to debate the issue anymore. It’s all, “Darwin said it. I believe it. That settles it,” as it were. They demur that they don’t want to give anyone the impression that Creationism is at all credible. They’re afraid that the very word “debate” might erroneously imply that anyone seriously objects to the Party position or that any noteworthy scientific objections to evolution exist at all. In fact, it has been noted that the late Stephen Jay Gould refused several times to debate Dr. John Morris simply because Morris was a scientist not a preacher – and Gould wanted to make sure the audience retained a false impression of the debate in terms of a dichotomous religion versus science canard.
Their alleged “rottweiler,” Richard Dawkins, is bold enough to snarl from the safety of printed word and the insulation of a sympathetic media, but Darwin’s Weiner Dog [for what rottweiler would act so?] will not champion his beliefs against an informed opponent. He’s content to yap boldly from the safety of his fenced yard, feigning supremecy in his dominance of his territory, forgetting all the while that if someone took away his protective hedge, if he dared step outside and face his rivals, they’d make a pretty sweet chew toy out of him.
You see, I suspect these evolutionists, they’re simply cowards.
The fact is, when you get right down to the nuts and bolts of science, this appeal to authority they’re hiding behind [for that’s what they do when they say the issue is settled or that there is no debate], and similar things things like credentialism, popularity or consensus, well, at best it’s unscientific – and it’s antiscience at worst! Consensus science doesn’t want investigation. Not if it questions the Establishment. It discourages skepticism of the norm, which in turn discourages innovation and progress. Consensus science doesn’t want honest scientific inquiry and open debate. No, it simply wants to browbeat us into submission.
“Stop thinking, you fool! We’ve already thought it all out for you! And we’re much smarter than you. Besides you’ll encourage those filthy Creationists. Now eat your dogma or you can stay at the kid’s table. It’s for your own good, of course…”
When free inquiry is thus suppressed and generally discouraged, science is barely possible. Of course, consensus science – and here’s a dity little secret the darwinists don’t want you dwelling on – isn’t really science at all. It’s simply a power grab. Real science always occurs when we question the established base of knowledge. Real science tests the boundaries for weaknesses for new areas to explore. It colors well outside the lines.
The good news is that the new consensus eventually supplants the old regime and assigns its predecessor the uneviable status of antiquated pseudoscience. Passing heresy. Scientific fad.
The bad news is that science really isn’t self-correcting, not in the way we’re led to believe anyhow. Most of us picture a stalwart young scientist [Let’s call him Larry Labcoat] who makes a new discovery which modifies or completely falsifies an existing theory; Larry’s discovery is investigated by other scientists and then quickly accepted by his peers because, well, it’s science, right? We imagine lots of these little Larry Labcoats constantly doing science and causing existing theories to be in a progressive state of revision, refinement, modification, falsification. We call it progress.
But it’s now been acknowledged the reigning consensus or paradigm is not replaced in this manner. Instead, young scientists grow up under the influence of a new heresy that is fought tooth and nail by the Old Guard. Larry Labcoat doesn’t correct science by careful and patient research, but rather by attrition. The Old Guard dies and its cherished dogma with it and is replaced by a younger generation that thinks Larry had it right. Their heresy becomes the new dogma.
But only if the Old Guard fails to influence the new generation instead of Larry.
Darwinists realize this. Right now, Big Science is evangelizing the next generation with an aggressiveness not before seen. They are determined that Darwin should outlive them, to pass the torch, so they are using Big Lies, mockery, persecution of dissenters and outright propaganda to try to convince the next generation that Larry labcoat is completely full of coprolites! We’re seeing the rise of the mockstar. They’ve sicced Richard Dawkins [Darwin’s Weiner Dog], Sam Harris [Darwin’s Meaner Weiner], Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennet [who together are supposed to be the ‘Four Horsemen’], a pretentious pack I shall dub instead Darwin’s Dauchsands of Doom, and a mangy lot of lesser mongrels [PZ “Whackaloon” Myers, Eugenie Scott and all the sordid rest] and Angry Atheists to rail entertainingly against Christendom in general and Creationism specifically. They’re not really into evidence these days. Oh they recycle the same tired arguments and diligently impart them to their disciples, but they’re relying heavily upon a cult of personality, bold mockery and overconfident swagger. It’s a bold PR program.
Unfortunately, its the sort of strategy that smacks of a weak argument. It reminds one of the old joke about the preacher’s sermon outline, which read: “Pound pulpit here! Point weak.” They’re like those loud-mouthed fellows we all recall from the schoolyard. They talk big, threaten boldly and mock confidently and flagrantly, but they carefully avoid actually engaging their foes. They beg off that it’s simply beneath them and a total waste of everyone’s time and, well, people will think they’re legitimate if we give them the time of day and we don’t want that! They’re those guys who always boasted that they could take you if they reeeeally wanted to but they didn’t want to waste their time, right? Such bravado is almost always false. A blustering cover for a glass chin.
Note that they don’t say, “Hey, let’s challenge these Creationist to a debate and show everybody they’re illegitimate with that massive amount of evidence we’re always boasting vaguely about!” Why is that?
Oh, I almost forgot. It’s because they almost always LOSE any real debates. They almost always come away looking really BAD. That’s the real reason they don’t want to debate the origins issue. And I truly adore their excuses for losing: We Creationists are wrong; we’re just better at argument and rhetorical tricks, but the evolutionists still have the better argument. They simply can’t seem to convincingly marshall said superior argument on the debate floor. How embarrassing! In short, they accuse us of duping and tricking a gullible, uninformed audience into thinking we’ve won when they should have! Do they know what the point of a debate is? Don’t they know THEY were supposed to inform that uniformed audience? Why can’t they manage it?
We know the reason, of course. They can bluster and yap and mock and make all of the sorry excuses they want from behind that white picket fence they’re hiding behind. We know the moment that Darwin’s Weiner Dog or one of those other insufferable Dachsunds of Doom “condescend” step out of their pampered yards into the streets of debate and free inquiry, these overglorified mockstars become chewtoys.
And they know it too.
:: Read Part 2: Climbing Mount Absurdity