Journalist Virginia Heffernan has kicked the evolution hornet’s nest by declaring that she’s a creationist (see my article). As usual, the evolutionary cockroaches have poured out from behind the walls of ignorance and pounced on her.
Here’s what one nutball evolutionist wrote:
“Virginia Heffernan is a science-phobic angel-believing climate change skeptic. She just said that. That is what she just said. We are not saying you’re a bad person, Virginia, but you should probably expect that, from now on, when people read your musings on, say, the future of internet communications, they might stop, in a moment of gathering doubt, and recall that you are a science-phobic angel-believing climate change skeptic, and that therefore your dedication to facts is somewhat in question. This could, and should, erode your credibility, in the eyes of those elitist readers who value things that are based on ‘evidence.’ So kudos to you for being brave enough to admit to your own hilarious prejudices again common sense.”
“Evidence”? This guy is woefully misinformed. He’s the classic straw man attacker. He’s like the neighborhood wimp who dreams of beating up the bully while punching his Joe Palooka punching bag. It’s easy when the real Joe’s not there to punch back. Evolutionists have taken care of that by keeping critics of Darwinism out of colleges and universities. Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, is the most recent example. I could win every debate if I’m the only one presenting an argument.
I would love to see the evidence for nothing becoming something, the origin of information, inert chemicals becoming people, atoms having a conscience, and morality stamped on DNA. When I see this evidence, I’ll become an evolutionist and carry the banner high.
Until that happens evolutionists need to stop talking philosophy and get back to being real scientists.
Given the operating assumptions of evolution and the so-called “evidence” for the science of Darwinism, I wonder how a truly consistent Darwinist would respond to the Trayvon Martin Killing.
In the world of evolution — “nature, red in tooth and claw” and “the survival of the fittest” — why was there a trial? It’s obvious by the result of the encounter that fateful evening that George Zimmerman was more fit. His genes will live on. In the early millennia of evolutionary “progress,” the daily struggle for survival was bloody. There was no right or wrong to it. The most fit survived, and their genes carried on.
In fact, old-school evolution would have had the survivor drag the carcass home to be shared among the clan to keep the struggling gene pool viably fit for future encounters. Survival was the name of the game and there was no god to issue a commandment like “you shall not murder.”
Barbara Reynolds, former columnist for USA Today, writes about the dominance of evolutionary dogmatism in our nation’s schools. Survival of the fittest is taught to every government-educated young person in America:
“Prohibiting the teaching of creationism in favor of evolution creates an atheistic, belligerent tone that might explain why our kids sometimes perform like Godzilla instead of children made in the image of God.
“While evolution teaches that we are accidents or freaks of nature, creationism shows humankind as the offspring of a divine Creator. There are rules to follow which govern not only our time on Earth, but also our afterlife.
* * * * *
“If evolution is forced on our kids, we shouldn’t be perplexed when they beat on their chests or, worse yet, beat on each other and their teachers.”1
George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were shining examples of evolution writ large. It’s time that evolutionists stand up and take credit for the result.
- Barbara Reynolds, “If your kids go ape in school, you’ll know why,” USA Today (August 27, 1993), 11A.(↩)