The Dogma of Darwinian Evolution
Human Events Online has published a wonderful little essay by Greg Frankey explaining how liberal organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are working to keep any mention of intelligent design out of public school classes of any stripe, let alone science classes.
In arguing so he shows how the teaching of evolution itself is nothing more than dogma, and points to some of the more pressing problems with the whole theory.
As counterintuitive as it seems that a species could develop new physical traits simply because such a mutation might be advantageous (can we all learn to fly or to breathe underwater if we just wish to long enough?), it simply defies credulity to think that human beings not only physically evolved from ape-like creatures, but developed the ability to think rationally by a similar process.
Certainly this would be an unprecedented phenomenon, entailing a much more extreme manner of natural selection than that which is known to occur.
According to Casey Luskin, Public Policy spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which is seeking to establish the right of teachers to question Evolutionary theory, the question isn’t whether it would have been advantageous for man to develop the ability to reason — of course it would have. The real question is whether mutations are capable of producing this. “This certainly seems to strain Darwin’s theory. It appears that something else has to be added to the equation to explain human complexity.”
Readers interested in this particular topic of the whole debate would be well severd by going back and reading David Berlinski’s award winning article “On The Origin of Mind.”
In wrapping up Frankey writes:
The reality is that simply accepting Darwinian dogma in spite of the many troublesome questions that arise entails far more faith than simply subscribing to Intelligent Design — or believing in God. This is not to state with finality that evolutionary theory is false — only that there are enough substantive problems with it that attempting to characterize it as all but factual, and therefore immune from challenge is a fundamentally flawed view.