Univ. of Wisconsin on Darwinism: "Most Americans not convinced"

By Curtis Dahlgren

"The left believes in 'experts.' The liberal is bowled over by the title 'Nobel laureate.' The conservative is more likely to wonder why a Nobel laureate in physics has anything more meaningful to say about [issues] than, let us say, a taxi driver." — Dennis Prager

A WEEK OR TWO AGO, I went to my favorite fast-food place to order my usual 99-cent meal. The girl at the cash register had a pierced tongue and eye brows, and a nose ring. She said, "May I helb you?"

I almost turned around and walked out, but took a deep breath and opened my tri-fold Velcro wallet. The pierced lady looked at the wallet as if to say, "EEW, that is SO uncool." The whole incident is a metaphor for the "cultural divide" in this country on so many issues.

The Wall Street Journal had two related "unrelated" stories the other day (6/20/06). A page one story, "Perpetrator Problem: It's Hard to Run Away In Falling Trousers."

Cops say "loose, baggy jeans trip up many a thief. Hey, Dude, buy a belt." [Or they could at least shop-lift one.]

The other item was an editorial page editorial, "Immigration consensus":

"Finally a consensus has been reached on immigration. No, not among politicians, who can't agree on a national immigration reform. The agreement is among . . . [at this point, I thought that the WSJ was going to say "among the citizens of the USA," but no!] . .

"The agreement is among professional economists. In an open letter to President Bush and Congress last week, more than 500 prominent economists, including [gasp] five Nobel laureates, proclaim that 'immigration has been a net gain for American citizens' . . . [Note the purposeful omission of the word illegal]

"Several years ago the Cato Institute surveyed the past presidents of the American Economic Association and the past chairmen of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Eighty percent agreed that immigration has had 'a very favorable impact on the nation's economic growth,' and 70% said that even illegal immigrant [workers] 'have a positive economic impact.' These experts agree . . . [blah, blah, blah]"

Now what does this editorial have in common with the baggy-pants story?

Well, I believe that just as the baggy pants have a "positive economic impact" for shop-lifters, but can be counter-productive in fleeing from the police, likewise, illegal immigration may be a "positive" for elitists who are trying to grow government and steal from the taxpayers, but such "immigration" could also be the undoing of these "experts" — the end of their political power — foiled by the lowly American voters who have been awakened by the blind obedience of "experts" to Politically Correct fads . .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's about the point I was at in writing my weekly column when I got the mail the other day and found a shocking article in ON WISCONSIN ("For UW-Madison Alumni and Friends"):

"Putting Faith in Science," the subhead of which is, "Intelligent design — an alternative theory of life supported by many Christians — argues that science alone can't explain the mysteries of our existence. And most Americans agree. Why has science been so unconvincing?"

The author, Deborah Blum ("a Pulitzer-Prize-winning science writer") points out that the U.W. has the oldest "history of science" department of its kind in the nation, and says that Professor Ronald Numbers may be one of the best people in the country to ask "why science has been so unconvincing."

"A significant reason, says Numbers, is scientific arrogance, which neither began nor ended with Tyndall's grandiose claims of a world illuminated only by science."

Journalism Professor Blum had opened her article with a quotation from John Tyndall, the Irish physicist, in 1874: "The impregnable position of science may be described in a few words. We claim, and we shall wrest from theology, the entire domain of cosmological theory. All schemes and systems which thus infringe upon the domain of science must, in so far as they do this, submit to its control, and relinquish ALL THOUGHT OF CONTROLLING IT." [my emphasis]

The article cites a recent Pew Forum that found that 3/4 of Americans are dissatisfied with Darwin's "explanation" of life. A similar Gallup poll last fall said that "a majority of the dissatisfied were college graduates," and that 53 percent of those polled preferred to believe that "God created humans in their present form." Even a majority of those who "accept" evolution think that the process would need help from "an intelligent designer."

SO WHO IS CALLING WHOM "STUPID"?

Blum cites British geneticist Richard Dawkins (who "routinely" couples the words faith and ignorance) and American "philosopher of science" Daniel Dennett, who told the New York Times that religious belief "can be explained in much the same way a cancer can."

Professor Numbers says, "Dennett and Dawkins say believing in God is stupid. Which is stupid. We're not going to get very far by assuming that all these people are too stupid to know what they're talking about or that creationists don't know anything. Of course, what helped me in that perspective was that I grew up with people who were creationists, so I already knew that a lot of them were very smart."

Now that that cat is out of the bag, will Darwinists begin to show a bit of humility or will they only become more desperate and dangerous — with a proliferation of lawsuits by the ACLU?

BTW, the first word in proliferation is "prolife," but whatever the answer to my question, this article in the summer 2006 issue of ON WISCONSIN may represent a tipping-point — at least in the public's understanding of itself — if not in public policy. The article wasn't actually an apology for a couple of centuries' worth of condescension by the "science community," but it came close. It was at least a public acknowledgment that there is more than one "school of thought" out there, which is the main point my column has been lasering in on for the past six months.

Of course, the public perception is that the two schools of thought are "old earth/old homo sapiens" and "young earth/young human race." There is another one out there: the "OLD EARTH/RELATIVELY-YOUNG HUMAN RACE" premise. That is the one that is the most threatening to the Darwinists, so the mainstream media just ignores it. Just as the conservatives would rather hold up John Murtha as an example of liberalism — rather than Senator Lieberman — so too the Darwinists don't even want to have to deal with the "OLD EARTH/YOUNG HUMANS" school-of-thought. Meanwhile, the "philosophers of science" constantly accuse all opponents of being control-freaks while continuing to "wrest from theology, the entire domain of cosmological theory"!

The best column of the week, and perhaps of the year, was by Don Feder:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23063 "A taste of left-wing 'civility'"

Feder says that when his daughter was 5 and his son was 4, World War III would break out every day at his house. Anna explained it all to grampa: "I hit Jonathan. He hits me. Then I tell Mommy."

The social engineers and pseudo-scientists smack theology where it hurts most. The traditionalists (and Ann Coulter) strike back. The ACLU runs off to Mommy — the Supreme Court — crying "foul"! Only this strategy isn't always going to work the way it has worked in the past.

UW professor Blum talks about two state laws, in Arkansas and Louisiana, that attempted to include some creationist "disclaimers" in the science curricula in the early 80s. The Supreme Court ruled the laws "unconstitutional" in 1987. Blum says, "The case gave evolution a legal victory, but a hollow one. Scientists and educators were faced with the reality that more than a century of science had not altered deep-seated beliefs within the Christian community about the origins of life."

When the Kansas state school board held hearings on Intelligent Design for the curriculum, "most scientists stayed away, thinking that if they refused to testify, it would be obvious that the idea wasn't even worth discussing. They were shocked when the decision went so clearly against them."

Blum quotes Professor Numbers: "There are wonderful statements from [the 1970s], people saying that we're on the road to secularization and just mopping things up [he says with a smile]." The next counter-wave of the near future after Intelligent Design is "Critical Evaluation" of evolution AND its alternatives.

"Numbers suspects that a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court is likely to support one of those efforts [by 18 states now exploring various changes in curricula] . . . 'They may win that one when it comes along' [to the Supreme Court, says Numbers]."

CONCLUSION

Deborah Blum concludes her article, "For all its illuminating power, scientific knowledge rarely leads to absolute certainty, and few of us would be satisfied with strict facts alone to help us comprehend our existence. As Albert Einstein famously noted, 'Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.'

"If, as scientists argue, accepting intelligent design is choosing blind faith, is the alternative something more than lameness? The will to believe is so strong . . that it can trump any empirical evidence."

The only thing I can add to that is, the "will to believe on the Left" is so strong, that THEY are the ones who are trumping cold facts with "blind faith."

P.S. You can e-mail any comments you may have to WAA@uwalumni.com. This topic superseded my original intent, which was to review the May 2006 issue of whistleblower magazine, whose articles include:

WHO IS FOR ALIEN INVASION?
CFR'S PLAN TO INTEGRATE THE U.S., MEXICO AND CANADA
RECONQUISTA IS REAL (by Michelle Malkin)
ILLEGALS THREATEN CLOSURE OF EMERGENCY ROOMS
THE GANGSTAS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD
WHAT BUSH FAILS TO SEE AT THE BORDER
www.worldnetdaily.com

© Curtis Dahlgren