Don’t Let Darwin Day Eat Your Valentine’s Day

By Jonathan Witt Published on February 13, 2017

Yep, Darwin Day, Feb. 12, doesn’t just crowd Valentine’s Day on the calendar. It’s trying to eat Valentine’s Day.

And we can’t say the Darwinists didn’t warn us.

Evolutionist Daniel Dennett called Darwinism a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept … dissolving the illusion of our own authorship, our own divine spark of creativity and understanding.”

Dissolve those things and there’s no room for romantic love to be anything very exalted.

Biologist E.O. Wilson is just as blunt. When Darwinian science conquers all, we will view the human brain as just the “product of genetic evolution by natural selection.” And the mind “will be more precisely explained as an epiphenomenon of the neuronal machinery of the brain.”

But surely we can rescue things like art, religion and poetry, right? No, Wilson insists. Evolution teaches us that all of it was “produced by the genetic evolution of our nervous and sensory tissues.”

Evolving Away Love

So what becomes of Valentine’s Day, of all of those romantic longings and pledges to love, honor and protect, maybe even till death do us part? Yes, glands and instincts are involved. Only a gnostic would deny that, and Christianity threw Gnosticism out on its ear at the Incarnation and the Resurrection.

But Darwinian science goes further. It insists the stuff of Valentine’s Day is all glands and instincts, and beneath those, all brain chemistry — a soulless concoction of matter and energy stirred up in the alchemist’s lab we call evolution.

So, why will a brave man take a bullet for his beloved? Darwin Day says it’s because natural selection prefers the male who protects his mate. A dead mate, after all, can’t pass the man’s genetic material on by bearing his children.

OK, but what about the man who takes a bullet to save the wife long past childbearing years? Or what about the third-century saint said to have given his life for Christ and Christian couples with no genetic relationship to himself? Cue the strained and dreary Darwinian just-so story to explain away the plain reality that we are more than instinct, more than meat, more than matter swirling in a meaningless void.

Solving the Case of the Cosmos

Fortunately the universal acid isn’t quite universal. It only works if you swallow the claim that the evidence for modern evolutionary theory is irresistible. It isn’t. Take a look at Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution. When scientists are championing a theory truly supported by irresistible evidence, they don’t press their case the way Darwinists do, by endlessly recycling evidence long discredited even by scientists in their own ranks (the icons of the book’s title).

The acid also fails if you reject a pair of dubious claims that work hand in glove. One is the claim that science must only offer theories that fit atheism. (This bit of irrationality goes by the high-sounding name methodological materialism.) The second is the idea that science so defined can and should cover all of human experience.

But that’s crazy. Imagine if a cat burglar stole the crown jewels of England, and Parliament approached Sherlock for help. Holmes agrees to take on the case, but with two provisos: (1) Nobody from the upper class can be a suspect. Won’t go there, he says. Simply isn’t done. And (2) Parliament should also hire him to investigate and answer every question the people of England face.

As bright as Sherlock is, Parliament would want to find another detective.

We should react the same way to evolutionists who first refuse to consider explanations from the “upper class” of possible causes — intelligent designers — and then insist on applying their truncated idea of reason to all of human experience.

They say they want to track down for you the causes of everything from the origin of the cosmos to the origin of life, sex, religion and love; but they refuse to leave the neighborhood of materialism in order to consider other “culprits.” Fine, then don’t give them the job.

Or rather, don’t let them keep the job, because they already have the job. They are busily discharging it in countless taxpayer-funded classrooms, nature documentaries and museum exhibits all around the globe.

As for Valentine’s Day, this year there will be the usual fluff, some of it wholesome, some of it crassly commercial, some of it crudely sensual. But there will also be honest songs and stories championing things mystical and eternal, and even a few sincere pledges of eternal love. My advice: Don’t let Darwin Day have all that. Leave it in the capable hands of the old poets, and St. Valentine, and the one he adored.

 

Jonathan Witt, Ph.D. is a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, and co-author of A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature (IVP).

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Gary

    Only fools believe nature, or chance can be the cause of the universe and of life because nature cannot be the cause of its own existence, and chance is nothing, and therefore, can cause nothing to happen.

    • Prettylady!

      Wrong, only totalitarians. Darwinism is the ground of totalitarians.

  • Tom Rath

    Can’t spell “evolution” without “love”.

    Also can’t spell “idiocy” without “ID”.

    Happy Valentine’s Day!

    • Prettylady!

      Keep clinging to your 19th cent fake science and sodomy!

      • Tom Rath

        And my wife says, “Thanks! We will!” HA!

  • Irene Neuner

    So if natural selection demands that something exists to be selected from how does natural selection create the original DNA strand? Why do people still believe this?

    • Tom Rath

      Natural selection is not intended to speak to the origins of biological life on this planet. rather, it addresses biodiversity.

      • Gary

        What you are claiming is that living things can make changes to their DNA. But living things do not posses that ability.

      • Kevin Quillen

        rather convenient, don’t ya think

      • Prettylady!

        There is no evidence that can back up natural selection, friend. Lets move into the 21st century. Evolution has been not been selected!

  • Ken Abbott

    It has always amused me that some “bright” boy co-opted a distinctly religious symbol (Christianity’s icthus–the word is formed from a Greek acronym declaring Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and Savior) to make another religious symbol declaring his faith commitment to naturalistic materialism.

  • Timothy Horton

    It’s both hilarious and pathetic the Discovery Institute has sunk so low in their desperate attempt to push scientific knowledge back 160 years. It’s been straight downhill for them ever since they face planted at Kitzmiller v. Dover.

    • Prettylady!

      Please, leave your 19th century fake science in the 19th century, with your eugenics. Evolution is complete nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence for evolution.

      • Timothy Horton

        Right. That’s why virtually every top college and university in the country offers undergrad and graduate level programs in evolutionary biology and its related fields. Because evolution doesn’t exist.

        • Prettylady!

          Oh, the ideology of evolution exists. Like Eugenics, the sexual revolution, and marxism. It’s just not valid, not based on evidence, and mostly humous, but it exists. sure.

          There is “transgender” studies at these idiotic secular religious temples called universities. That doesn’t make transgenderism any more of a lie, and dangerous….

          • Timothy Horton

            You’ve never been within 1000 yards of a science classroom, right?

          • honeybadger

            Interesting non response. Tell me, what is the evidence for natural selection based on random mutations?

          • Timothy Horton

            Nice overview here. The details literally fill whole libraries.

            STREAM won’t let me post links, type in the URL yourself, replace the DOT with “.”

            wwwDOTtalkoriginsDOTorg/faqs/comdesc/

            The Scientific Case For Common Descent

          • honeybadger

            Why don’t you summarize it for me? You sound like you HAVE been in a science classroom, so it shouldn’t be too hard to summarize? Should it?

          • Timothy Horton

            There is far too much to summarize in this tiny text box. If you can’t be bothered to read and educate yourself why should I waste time doing it?

          • honeybadger

            Thats what I thought. You couldn’t explain anything from that on line text book , because you have no idea what your talking about, isnt that right, mr science classroom?

            Your experience with evolution is probably no differnt than mine: we were told we come from fish, good, theres no questions, lets move on.

            If you can’t summarize the “proof” for evolution in a few sentences (Id even give you a few paragraph) you prove that you are clueless.. …

            Next….

          • Timothy Horton

            There’s no ignorance quite as powerful as creationist willful ignorance. Don’t read the tutorial, don’t learn anything, stay as ignorant as dirt.

            BTW science doesn’t “prove” theories. Science supplies positive supporting evidence.

          • honeybadger

            I didn’t think you could explain anything, because you are clueless. It’s you who are willfully ignorant, and a faithful only to scientism. You aren’t interested in science. You cant even explain something you mock me for not understanding. WHat a fraud.

          • Timothy Horton

            More willful ignorance. Also nice to demand someone summarize the evidence for the change and mechanisms of divergence of life over 3.8 billion years in a few hundred characters. I could explain SNPs and indels and the mechanism which cause genetic variation, I could explain neutral (drift) theory, I could explain the latest finds from paleontology, I could explain population genetics, I could explain the mechanisms of speciation, I could explain Hox genes and their effect on body development, I could explain atavisms, I could explain predator-prey cycles, I could explain animal mimicry…I could explain in some depth any number of topics in evolutionary biology but you wouldn’t understand a word of it.

            So stay a willfully ignorant lump. No skin off my nose.

          • honeybadger

            How many mutations, changes, occurred to create an eye?

          • Timothy Horton

            How much willful ignorance can a creationist exhibit?

          • honeybadger

            excuse me. You havn’t explained anything, despite your professed scientific brilliance.

            Tens of millions of mutations. Each completely isolated, unconnected to the mutation before it, and the one after it. And you expect me to believe that the human eye came from this? It’s just silly.

            Order out of chaos, randomly. You MUST think I’m stupid to believe such nonsense!

          • Timothy Horton

            You’ve already demonstrated your scientific ignorance and incompetence. No need to belabor the fact.

          • honeybadger

            I’m a violin teacher. I never said Iwas a scientist. YOU said you were an expert. But you can’t explain it.

            Sounds like a religious zealot to me!

          • honeybadger

            Evolution is a scam. Youv’e been had, pal!

          • Timothy Horton

            You should stick to teaching violin instead of making yourself look like an illiterate fool preaching about scientific topics on which you know less than nothing.

          • honeybadger

            Haha! THats what I thought. You are clueless about sciecne, you are a areligious fanatic!

            Oh darwin, pray for us

          • honeybadger

            The human eye must have had 10s of thousands 100s of thousand or MILLIONS of random mutations. Each one completely unrelated to the mutation before ,and unrelated to the mutation after.

            And we are suppose to believe this is how we get something as complex as the eye?
            Then the digestive system, then the circulatory system, then teh reproductive system then the brain. My friend, the odds that this is random are staggering.

            Explain it.

          • Timothy Horton

            The human eye must have had 10s of thousands 100s of thousand or MILLIONS of random mutations. Each one completely unrelated to the mutation before ,and unrelated to the mutation after.

            Wow, you really are an idiot. Evolution is a feedback process with a random component (genetic variation) and a non-random component (selection). The feedback from selection causes mutations which are neutral or beneficial to be fixed in the gene pool and become part of the baseline for the next generation’s mutations. Thus mutational driven changes which increase functionality tend to accumulate over time.
            That’s something every Freshman learns in basic Biology 101. You have no science training at all, do you?

          • honeybadger

            Evolution is a feedback process with a random component (genetic variation)

            How many mutations had to happen in the human eye, you ignore numbers. You just have your theory and then you call people names if they question you.

            Sounds like a religious nut to me.

            How many of these random mutations had to get feedback in order to become the eye?

          • vorpal

            Random mutations: observed and established as factual.
            Natural selection based on random mutations: bacterial drug resistance is but one example.

            There are so many examples of natural selection based on random mutations that to deny that this exists at this point is as silly as proposing that the earth is flat. If you want to deny macroevolution, I’ll think you’re a moron, but at least it isn’t as immediately obvious with observable evidence occurring on the timescale of being within one’s lifetime that it is happening.

  • Prettylady!

    Darwinism is Marxism, is fascism. Without Darwin, we don’t get marx. Darwinism is just old bad 19th century fake science. No one takes it seriously, except, well, Marxists!

Inspiration
Covetous? Who, Me?
Liberty McArtor
More from The Stream
Connect with Us