The Tennessee ConserVOLiance

Something that’s been intriguing to me of late (here, here and at other times when Evolution has come up as a debate topic) is how obviously the issue of Evolution goes way deeper than science with Lefties. As a result, their credibility suffers and their claims lack traction . . . a majority of Americans are still skeptical.

As a neo-Darwinism skeptic myself, I do not believe that all living beings have a common descendant. I won’t pretend that I have a deep understanding of science, much less that I’m an expert. And I won’t pretend that Evolutionists don’t (typically) have compelling credentials, and intelligence, and even evidence supporting their theory of Origins. But, as noted above, a majority of Americans are with me on the issue–despite a secular, Left-of-center stranglehold on the opinion-shapers of public education, Academia and the so-called Mainstream Media. That lack of traction is intriguing and significant. Sure, my views on Evolution also go deeper than science, but I’m not claiming otherwise.

Too many on the Left aren’t getting the message that they’ve got work to do on the PR front. So let’s consider why the majority of us aren’t buying what Evolutionists are selling. There are are a variety of reasons–some substantive, some rhetorical– but here are a few.

Arrogance on the part of Neo-Darwinists doesn’t help their credibility.
I’d say there’s little disputing that Neo-Darwinism is the dominant belief among American Elites. Elites–somewhat by definition, think highly of themselves, and people who consider themselves devoted to learning and teaching and researching and “knowledge” are keen on being “right.” Incidentally, it is rather consistent with the Judeo-Christian worldview that thinking highly of oneself and one’s understanding is challenged by the possibility of God. Naturalist (or Anti-supernaturalist) dogma is much more accommodating to human nature. For a troubling look at the deception under-girding much of Neo-Darwinism, you ought to read the article Survival of the Fakest.

All that being said, I suspect the “audience” of Americans is troubled by the picture of supposed clinical, objective, apolitical, altruistic scientists sniffing at those who deign to question their (scientists’) premises and/or presuppositions. Moreover, I think we in the “audience” are troubled by the picture of scientists who seem threatened by questions. Which leads to my next observation.

Defensiveness on the secular Left is suspicious.
Challenging the existing presumptions of “science” is what any genuinely altruistic, objective, apolitical, dispassionate scientist does. Evolutionary theory is an historical science–we’re never going to observe (unless the “scientists” also solve “death”) inter-species Evolution.

Evolutionary theory offers plausible explanations for some questions about how living things got to be the way they are, but it (Evolutionary theory) leaves many (most, of the really important, at least) questions unanswered. Pardon me (us . . . in the majority) if the failure of your theory (to offer plausible explanations for crucial questions) inclines me to disbelieve other tenets of your theory.

And with the data/evidence put forth in the movie Expelled–not to mention the oppressive, stifling know-it-all-ism demonstrated by many who call themselves Evolutionists, one can fairly wonder if anything that doesn’t comport with the secular, Anti-Supernatural party line could ever get a fair hearing. (Aside: there’s an impressive website that has been put together to bash Expelled, called www.expelledexposed.com. I was intrigued to read all the rebuttal evidence offered to say, “The persons featured in the film were never mistreated, ostracized, unfairly penalized, etc. etc.” If you’ve ever gone up against the HR in a big company it is almost laughable how unquestioningly the apologists accept what appears to be run-of-the-mill corporate or bureaucratic wagon-circling. Butt-covering personnel memos or press releases are hardly compelling evidence of what did or did not happen to an individual who challenged corporate/bureaucratic conventions.

(Aside: For a smack-down of said sniffing Neo-Darwinist apologists, read this exchange about “the evolving eye.”)

A majority of us don’t agree that intelligent design theory is non-scientific.
Here’s a good description–I’d say, of what most Americans think on this issue,

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Questions lead to hypotheses, and there are lots of legitimate questions about Evolutionary Theory. I guess the problem here is that we can’t prove or disprove irreducible complexity, but we can–using math and statistical analysis, deduce that the odds of some seemingly irreducibly complex organs or organisms “evolving” or happening by chance mutation are beyond belief. In the face of that assessment, it seems a true scientist would want to keep looking–with an open mind, to find a more plausible explanation . . . that is, unless that scientist has too much vested in the paradigm or over-arching theory already in place. Interestingly, once you can get a Neo-Darwinist to stop sniffing and start talking, they begin to offer scientific “proofs” or reasons that they believe Intelligent Design, for example, isn’t good science. That, dear reader, is testable, which is scientific, which kind of hurts their argument. That may be part of why they’d rather sniff than talk.

I guess it comes down to objectivity, and the majority of Americans have real doubts about the objectivity of the “scientific” powers that be. As stated at intelligentdesignnetwork.org

Government and public education Institutions supporting Origins Science should also also strive for Objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.
Unfortunately, many Institutions of Science and government employ unyielding preconceptions that favor certain explanations of origins over others and thereby take sides in this important controversy. The establishment of an “orthodox” explanation of origins impairs good Science, restricts freedom, disturbs peace and offends laws requiring government to be religiously Neutral.

Maybe the amateur scientists who e-pillory and deride any person who dares question Neo-Darwinism are unaware of the gaps in their theory. Maybe–given that a strong offense is the best defense, they shout down “flat earthers” and “science deniers” in the interest of squelching debate.

So, this subject seems to go deeper than science for all of us. Who’s in denial again?

See also at WisdomisVindicated.

Also,