Why Darwinists Fear Democracy

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

On
December 24, I received a letter in response to my obituary for
Mel Gabler.

Jesus,
it’s about time the fascist bastard died. I’m a scientist. I know
he, and his wife, tried to make science politically correct with
the religious crowd by opposing the teaching of evolution in public
schools. It took the appearance of Nobel prize winning physicist
Steve Weinberg before the Texas School Board textbook committee
to undue the damage that the Taliban-like Gablers did to the teaching
of evolution.

I’m
glad the old bastard’s dead. As he fries in hell, let him repent
at leisure.

Regards
Bob
P.
Lebanon, PA

Bob is confused about definitions: limited Constitutional government
is not fascism. Limited Constitutional government thwarts fascism,
which is a political theory based on the idea that the bureaucratic
State should regulate the economy. Giovanni Gentile was the primary
theoretician for Italian fascism. He wrote in 1932:

The
keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State,
of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State
is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and
groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State.
Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral
progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities
to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has
a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as “ethical”.

As to Bob’s concept of eternity, Scientific American has
yet to publish anything definitive. But Bob surely does understand
politics. He also knows just how well the Gablers understood politics.
He is unhappy that people like the Gablers have finally grasped
the nature of the textbook scam that the evolutionists have been
running for the past century: forcing the opponents of Darwinism
to pay for compulsory educational institutions that teach Darwinism
to their children.

WHO SHOULD DECIDE WHAT GETS TAUGHT?

This raises a fundamental political issue, one which has divided
American voters since about 1921: the legitimacy of a majority of
voters to determine the content of whatever is taught to children
in tax-funded institutions.

The Darwinists are adamant: voters must sit down and shut up, fork
over their tax money to university-certified academic experts, and
send their children into the public schools. Bob is representative
of this position.

Fundamentalist Christians are divided. Some believe that the public
schools should teach both views, Darwinist and non-Darwinist, with
equal time for both positions, with both taught as theories. Mel
Gabler was representative of this position. Others believe that
only creationism should be taught. There is no public representative
of this position, yet as many as 40% of Americans polled hold this
view, as we shall see.

I am adamant: the public schools should be auctioned off next Wednesday
— Friday at the latest. R. J. Rushdoony was representative of this
position: The
Messianic Character of American Education
(1963). So is
John Taylor Gatto: The Underground History of American
Education
. I would go further. Property taxes should be
reduced accordingly. All state and Federal aid to local school districts
should cease, since all local school districts should cease, with
all expenditures saved to become permanent tax reductions.

Ever since the Scopes Trial of 1925, Bob’s viewpoint has been dominant
where it counts: in the civil courts. Elected legislatures just
can’t be trusted.

DEMOCRACY DOESN’T COUNT

Bob and his peers are well aware of this truth: their opinions regarding
man’s origins are not shared by the vast majority of Americans.
This fact bothers them, but not enough to surrender control over
tax-funded education to the will of the people. It bothers them
because they have lost the intellectual battle for the minds of
men, despite their century-long monopoly over public education.
The public still isn’t buying the Darwinists’ tuition-subsidized
product.

For over two decades, the Gallup organization has polled Americans
regarding their views on Darwinism, which teaches that biological
evolution is an impersonal process resulting from unplanned interactions
between natural laws (which may or may not evolve — a major in-house
debate), the environment, and the facts of reproduction of various
species. Darwin’s disciples are adamant: God had no part in this
process.

The public relations problem for Darwinists is this: the percentage
of Americans polled who affirm this view of biological evolution
has yet to hit 15%. Despite a century of absolute control over public
school curriculum materials and university science departments,
the Darwinists have been unable to persuade more than 12% of the
population of the truth of their position. This is not an impressive
academic track record.

An author in The New Humanist magazine, published in Great
Britain, has bewailed
the situation
.

Opinion
polls about teaching Creationism also make for depressing reading.
A 2001 Gallup survey revealed that 68 per cent of Americans favour
teaching Creationism in schools alongside evolution (29 per cent
oppose). In a separate question about completely replacing evolution
education with Creationism, the survey showed 40 per cent in favour
of a Creationism-only curriculum but 55 per cent against. Some
science educators actually took comfort from this news that a
slight majority of Americans are in favour of giving evolution
equal time with Creationism rather than eliminating it from schools
entirely! In this climate, Darwin’s followers are likely to remain
an endangered species.

He then reprinted the results of two decades of polling by Gallup
on these issues.

Question
’82
’91
’93
’97
’99
’01

God
created people in present form within last 10,000 years
44%
47%
47%
44%
47%
45%

Evolution
occurred over millions of years guided by God
38%
40%
35%
44%
40%
37%

Evolution
occurred with
no interference by God
9%
9%
11%
10%
9%
12%

Don’t
Know
9%
4%
7%
7%
4%
6%

In
a study of public opinion in 1999,
political science professor George Bishop at the University of Cincinnati
observed:

Despite
rising levels of people with college educations in this country,
views on creationism have remained steady over the last 15 years.
Nearly a third of college graduates, 31 percent, in recent Gallup
polls, still believe in the biblical account of creation. This
is somewhat of a theoretical riddle.

It
gets even more perplexing.

A
recent study of American scientists showed that only five percent
believed in the creationist view of human origins; a majority
(55%) endorsed the Darwinian position, but a large percentage
(40%) also subscribed to the theistic evolutionist perspective.
Since many scientists consider the controversy surrounding evolution
and creationism a political issue, they are reluctant to join
in the public debate, according to Bishop.

They are reluctant to join in the public debate because they know
where their bread is buttered: in university departments that are
accredited by their Darwinist academic peers. Accreditation conveys
state-enforced monopoly benefits in the competition for students,
funding, pay scales, and tenure. Discretion is the better part of
valor. They remain silent.

OLD MCDONALD HAD A THEORY

In summarizing Dr. Bishop’s findings, American Atheists, Inc., had
these explanations for the recalcitrance of die-hard creationists:

Critics
suggest that differences in education and social expectations
may marginalize women, steering them away from careers in hard
sciences, and that ethnic minorities suffer due to lack of equal
spending for schools and other services. Regional differences
may emerge due to varying public budgets for education; poor rural
areas, for instance, have less money to spend on classrooms, science
labs and good texts than their upscale, industrial area counterparts.

It seems that creationists are mostly women, people of color, and
farmers.

Most Americans live in cities. People surveyed by Gallup pollsters
are mostly urban. Then why don’t they buy into the public schools’
certified worldview? All science textbooks are screened at the state
level, which is why the Gablers were able to have so much clout.
An explanation of creationist beliefs that rests on “bad texts”
is not what I would call rigorous.

The underlying assumption of those who offer such a theory is that
fundamentalist Christians are rural bumpkins. This has been the
academic Establishment’s Party Line ever since William Jennings
Bryan in 1921 began calling for a level academic playing field in
the public school classrooms: no more monopoly of Darwinism in the
textbooks. I have provided extensive evidence for this in my 1996
chapter, “Darwinism, Democracy, and the Public Schools,” available free on-line.
Typical was an editorial in the New York Times (Feb. 9, 1922),
which announced: “Kentucky is not the only State in the Union, by
any means, for whose village theologians the name of Darwin is still
one with which to scare children.”

The folks at American Atheists, Inc., blame Americans, not the scientific
community’s implausible arguments, for this lack of acceptance of
Darwinism. “The scientific world view has thus far failed to complete
Darwin’s revolution in the land of One Nation Under God … We don’t
stack up well as a nation. Religious belief tends to be inversely
correlated with what most scientists would say is simple fact.”

MOUSETRAPPED

Let’s talk about a simple fact. A mousetrap is made up of components.
Eliminate just one component, and the device will not work. There
is no way for random natural processes to produce anything so complex
as a mousetrap on an incremental basis. The unconnected parts convey
no competitive advantage. Yet a cell is vastly more complex than
a mousetrap. So is an eye. (When I think of the logic of Darwinism’s
theory of natural selection, I think of the line in A
Christmas Story
: “You’ll shoot your eye out, kid!”)

This “simple fact” of mousetrap evolution was presented by cellular
biology professor Michael Behe in his 1996 best-seller, Darwin’s
Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
. He calls
his criticism the theory of “irreducible complexity.” Behe’s book
has inflicted more damage on Darwinists than anything published
since 1859. Yet the argument is quite simple. Anyone who has not
been indoctrinated by graduate school biology can readily understand
it. Its simplicity is what is driving Darwinists crazy — or worse,
from their point of view, to theism.

A few weeks ago, Anthony Flew, one of the most famous atheists in
the world, announced that there must have been design
in the universe
. He has publicly recanted his lifelong atheism.
He says he felt compelled to follow the evidence.

Snap!

PUTTING THE SHUCK ON THE BUMPKINS

To the extent that the American academic Establishment is Darwinian,
it is of necessity politically elitist. The self-certified, self-accredited
professorate wants its academic work funded by taxpayers. The professors
also want their worldview written into the textbooks that are paid
for by taxpayers. They want no back-talk from voters. They see democracy
as a matter of temporary convenience. Whenever democracy threatens
to transfer the monopolistic power they possess over the allocation
of money extracted by compulsion from taxpayers, they abandon all
pretence of honoring democracy.

That the creationists are still pleading for some God-free, Supreme
Court-acceptable version of creationism to be included in the tax-funded
curriculum indicates that they are slow learners. They still believe
in the right of one group of voters to compel other voters to pay
for the indoctrination of the masses. They still believe in the
academic presupposition of the Darwinists, namely, that experts
are entitled to exercise coercive control over the funding of education,
and therefore also over the content of education.

This is why the creationists, scientific or otherwise, will continue
to lose the academic battle for control over tax-funded schools.
They are up against dedicated career professionals whose only religion
is the power religion, and who are already on the State’s payroll.
In contrast, the creationists believe in democracy’s God-given authority
to legitimize academic coercion. Those who control the education
system don’t believe this and never have. On the contrary, the educrats
believe in coercion for its own sake. Democracy is seen merely a
temporary means to an end. It is a convenient ruse to baffle the
bumpkins.

When it comes to a theory of education, the creationists really
are bumpkins. They want equal time for Jesus in a system based on
coercion rather than evangelism, on coerced funds rather than donations,
on state power rather than family authority. They seek a level playing
field in a rigged game. They have abandoned Mount Sinai in preference
for Mount Coercion.

Then they wonder why they keep losing.

CONCLUSION

Darwinism has been on financial life-support for a hundred years.
To put it out of its misery, voters need only pull the plug. Vote
no on every school bond issue. Pull your kids out of the public
schools. Pay as you go. As I said in front of 10,000 Christian activists
at a rally in Texas in 1980, “If every Baptist in Texas pulled his
child out of the public schools on Monday, there would be no public
schools on Wednesday.”

Reforming the public schools is like sending a physician into the
local red light district to certify the health of the industry’s
full-time professionals. This makes things physically safer for
their clients. Demand therefore increases. I ask: “Why subsidize
debauchery?” But, then again, I’m an extremist.

Bob
replied, “I find it quaint about your notion of science is that
it’s a democracy.” No, Bob, I don’t regard science as a democracy.
But I regard your hand in my wallet and the tax man’s gun in my
belly as having been originally justified in the name of democracy.
I’m ready to drop the whole matter — just as soon as you and
your accomplices quit living off non-Darwinists’ productivity by
threatening us with jail and confiscation for refusing to bankroll
your version of science. When you got the tax man to fund your projects
at our expense, you moved from science to politics. You’re addicted
to our money. If we ever pull the plug, you will have to fund your
own worldview. Horrifying, isn’t it?

December
27, 2004

Gary
North [send him mail] is the
author of Mises
on Money
. Visit http://www.freebooks.com.

Gary
North Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts